Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Beaconsfield, in the room of Sir Ronald McMillan Bell, Knight, QC, deceased.—[Mr. Jopling.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

HONG KONG AND CHINA GAS COMPANY LIMITED BILL [Lords]

THOMAS BROWN AND SONS, LIMITED BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Pensioners (Cost of Living Index)

Mr. Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in the pensioners cost of living index in the last 12 months.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): The retail price index for one-person pensioner households increased by 10·9 per cent., and that for two-person pensioners by 11·2 per cent. over the year to the first quarter of 1982.

Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfair that some pensioners have to spend up to 10 per cent. of their incomes paying standing charges for gas, electricity, water and telephone? Will he take steps to help? How is this factor weighted and calculated in the index?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend asks principally a question that is not for me to answer. Whether standing charges have a disproportionate effect on pensioners is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and others. Standing charges are reflected in the pensioner indices both in the price indicators and in the weights, which are based on the actual expenditure of low-income pensioner households, as reported in the family expenditure survey. Indeed, my hon. Friend might like to look back to a full description of the construction of these indices in the June 1969 edition of Employment Gazette.

Mr. Stallard: Does the Secretary of State accept that standing charges are affected by the Government's policies, generally? Is he aware that the standing charges for gas have quadrupled in the two and a half years since the Government came to office, and that electricity standing charges have increased by two and a half times? Will the Secretary of State now accept some responsibility for initiating a review into the effect of the standing charges and other burdens on pensioners?

Mr. Tebbit: I thought that I had explained the position clearly to the House, but obviously the hon. Gentleman did not quite follow what I said. I suggest that he reads my answer in Hansard tomorrow.

Sir Peter Emery: In considering increases in the cost of living for pensioners, will my right hon. Friend recall that not so long ago Conservative policy was to increase pensions every six months, not every 12 months? Does he


realise that at least two member States of the European Community find it possible to increase pensions every six months? If the reason for not doing so is purely administrative difficulty, could not the Government overcome it so that those who die during the last six months of the period have some benefit during the last few months of their lives?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend should consider two matters. First, inflation has been brought firmly under control since the idea was first mooted. It is now only just over 10 per cent. and falling. The prospect of long-term single figure inflation is within our grasp. The position is very different from that during the term of the previous Government. Secondly, by November, on the next uprating, the pension will have been increased by 68 per cent. since we came into office compared with an expected increase in prices over the same period of 65 per cent.

Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme

Mr. Wolfson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were helped by the temporary short-time working compensation scheme in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): A precise figure is not available, but I estimate that almost 1·3 million people have shared short-time working under the scheme in Great Britain in the past 12 months.

Mr. Wolfson: Would my right hon. Friend like to elaborate on the actions that he has taken to deal with the present unemployment problems and compare those actions with what was done under the previous Government?

Mr. Alison: We have dramatically increased the amount spent on special employment measures. Indeed, at a time when Government expenditure as a whole is tending to decrease, expenditure on special employment measures this financial year has increased by 50 per cent. over the previous year.

Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that the recent decline in the number of textile and clothing workers covered by the short-time working compensation scheme has nothing to do with the alleged recovery in the economy, and that trading conditions in these industries remain seriously depressed? Will he look favourably at the two proposals from the trade unions and employers in the industries—that firms that have already used their full entitlement can reapply after a suitable time, and that firms that go back to full-time working before using their full entitlement can save the unused portion for later use if demand declines again?

Mr. Alison: I am ready to consider constructively any proposal to help the textile industry. I have recently received two deputations about the scheme from firms and groups in textile areas. The temporary short-time working compensation scheme is not a counter-cyclical measure to help the textile industry. It is designed to support jobs that are basically viable in the medium term.

Employment Bill

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is planning to hold meetings with members of trade unions to discuss aspects of the Employment Bill legislation.

Mr. Tebbit: As I have made quite clear, I am of course always ready to meet appropriate representatives of trade unions to discuss matters relating to the Employment Bill.

Mr. Dykes: What is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the degree of support for the legislation among trade union members?

Mr. Tebbit: It is clearly very high, as has been shown for a long time by successive surveys by a large number of opinion survey companies, independent of the Government.

Mr. Donald Stewart: As the Engineering Employers Federation has come out against the Bill, is there not now the clear impression from both sides that it would lead to confrontation and disturbance in work places rather than to the reverse?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman's question is based on a false presumption. At the Financial Times conference the director general of the Engineering Employers Federation stated:
The Federation broadly supports the Government's step by step approach to the reform of industrial relations. The proposals now going through Parliament will introduce several valuable reforms for which the EEF pressed
when responding to the Green Paper.

Mr. Renton: Is it not a matter of great regret that the TUC, while using £1 million of its members' money to conduct a leaflet war against the Bill, has failed to consult the Government on matters of detail within it? Even at this late stage will my right hon. Friend press trade union leaders to consult him on such matters as the definition of a political dispute to see whether the Bill can be further improved before Report?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is correct. The trade unions have not even consulted their members or given them the choice about contributing lop a head to the campaign. I have certainly done what my hon. Friend asks. On the last occasion, as recently as 25 February, I stated in writing to Mr. Murray:
I would like to repeat the offer I made in my letter of 23 December to discuss these and any other matters you may wish to raise with me.
That was referring to the issues in the Employment Bill. He has not accepted my invitation.

Mr. Harold Walker: Has the Secretary of State not made it absolutely clear by his behaviour and that of his Ministers in the Standing Committee that concluded last week that he is not prepared to listen to reasonable argument? Can one wonder that the TUC is not prepared to waste time on a dialogue with the deaf? Is it not clear that the Engineering Employers Federation is not alone in having serious reservations about the consequences of the measure for industrial relations? It is joined by the General Council of British Shipping and the Institute of Personnel Management in expressing serious concern.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman chooses to continue on the Floor of the House his Committee filibuster. My invitation to Mr. Murray on 23


December to talk to me about the matter was brushed aside. It could not have been brushed aside because of our proceedings in Committee, as they had not then started. I entirely refute what the right hon. Gentleman says about our unwillingness to listen to reasoned argument. The problem was that there was not much reasoned argument.

Training Boards

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the training boards.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): We intend to lay orders winding up 16 boards and reducing the scope of three others in two batches. We hope to lay the first batch within the next few days and the second about a month later.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the axe falls on the Road Transport Industry Training Board's facility, the MOTEC at Livingston, will the Minister pay it a visit?

Mr. Morrison: As I made clear to the hon. Gentleman when he came to see me, I have watched the matter of the Livingston MOTEC carefully. Its future is a matter for the Road Transport Industry Training Board.

Mr. Haslehurst: Will my hon. Friend make it clear beyond peradventure that he will not lay an order before the House concerning a training board unless he is absolutely satisfied that the voluntary arrangements are satisfactory now and for the long term?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on numerous occasions that he will not lay an order to wind up a board until he is satisfied that the voluntary proposals are satisfactory.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Minister not recklessly leaving industrial training to market forces? Are not his voluntary schemes so discredited that he has to give them an alias—"non-statutory"?

Mr. Morrison: The Government's policy is to clear away unnecessary bureaucracy. I have great confidence in the employers organisations coming forward with perfectly satisfactory voluntary training arrangements.

Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the early years the training boards did a good job, but that, unfortunately, as time went on their performance varied, and while some still did a reasonable job others became bureaucratic and overstaffed?

Mr. Morrison: I could not put it better. As time went on some of the boards lost the confidence of employers who were within their scope.

Mr. Leighton: Did the Minister read in the Sunday Times the remarks of David Mitchell, the outgoing director of the Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Training Board that the Minister was desperate to save his face and that he needed at least a piece of paper to show that the industry was capable of voluntary training or he would end up with egg on his face? Is he aware that he appears before us today metaphorically covered in yolk? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Morrison: Since that report, for which of course I am not responsible, Mr. Mitchell has written to me stating that in many respects the voluntary arrangements are perfectly satisfactory.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are registered unemployed in the United Kingdom; and what is his latest estimate of the number of unemployed who are not registered as such.

Mr. Tebbit: At 15 April the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 3,007,726. The latest information suggests that in 1979–80 about a third of a million people were seeking work but were not registered as unemployed.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of the fact that if one takes account of the unregistered unemployed and all those who are on short-time working and special employment schemes—some of which are of questionable value—the true figure for unemployment is over 4 million? Is it not about time that the Tory Party hired Saatchi & Saatchi to design a new poster showing an ever-increasing dole queue with a caption declaring that Thatcherism is not working?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman, like most of us, has, I fear, a liking for some subjective interpretations of highly selective statistics. He is aware, but does not care to recall, that in the past, when unemployment was admittedly lower, surveys showed that between 10 and 20 per cent. of the registered unemployed were not actively seeking work or were not concerned about being out of work. As there are about 10 million people of working age who are not at work he could just as well call that, instead of 4 million, the total of unemployed. We should stick to the form of statistics used for many years by successive Governments.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to blame the economic policies of the Government for unemployment? The stance of some trade union leaders, with restrictive practices, unreasonable wage demands and frivolous strikes, has in many cases priced us out of jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that blame for unemployment must be laid at the door of the trade union leaders?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed, and facts speak louder than words in many ways. In a firm such as the Jaguar motor car company wage restraint, increased productivity, better attention to quality, and greater consideration for the customer have meant that the company has increased its sales and is taking on more workers. The way ahead is to solve the problems of the past and to satisfy the customer.

Miss Joan Lestor: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that it is best to keep to the method of compiling statistics used by previous Governments, why, after October, is his Department compiling unemployment statistics to include only those eligible to receive benefits and not those registered for work? In a letter to me from his Department he agreed that 65,000 women will be removed from the unemployment figures, not because they are not unemployed, but because they do not qualify for benefit. Why is he altering the method of collating statistics when he has just defended it?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Lady knows the answer to that question. It is a consequence of, amongst other things, voluntary registration. Where there are any changes from the exact form—I use that expression to mean the general form of statistics that we should maintain—the statistics


that are issued will be annotated—for example, in the way that the statistics that are issued now clearly show the estimate that is made of the effect on the total of unemployed by the special employment measures.

Mr. Harold Walker: It is a fiddle.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that that is a fiddle, because that is exactly what the Department did when he was a Minister.

Employment Act 1980

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Employment Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): The Employment Act 1980 came into force just over one and a half years ago. It is still too soon to make any final judgment about its effectiveness, although it has clearly constituted a substantial first step in promoting much needed reforms. We have, of course, taken full account of the way in which the Act has operated in drawing up the measures contained in the Employment Bill.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the step-by-step approach in the Act to industrial relations has been vindicated by events? Will he resist all future approaches to depart from a cautious approach to industrial relations?

Mr. Waddington: I agree with my hon. Friend that there has been complete justification of the step-by-step approach and the importance of not moving ahead of public opinion. We were very careful when framing the Employment Act 1980 to include only proposals that had massive support from every section of British industry.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that when the Act was introduced Tory Ministers said repeatedly that one reason for its introduction was to ensure that there would be a reduction in unemployment arising from the removal of alleged restrictive practices? Is he further aware that since that date there has been an increase in unemployment nearly every month, rising to nearly 4 million?

Mr. Waddington: My recollection is that when the Act was introduced it was made abundantly plain that it was introduced to deal with easily identified abuses. This year's Bill has also been introduced to deal with abuses. The general public were calling upon us to make sure that they were dealt with.

Mr. Madel: Is it not a fact that management and unions are carefully operating the 1980 Act? Will my hon. and learned Friend draw to the attention of trade unions the fact that they should use the ballot procedures not just on whether there should or should not be industrial action, but on their rules and procedures?

Mr. Waddington: Certainly it is a great disappointment that after public moneys have been made available the TUC should still be saying that unions should not take these moneys to increase democracy in the trade union movement. That is a shocking attitude, particularly when the unions are taking public moneys for the training of shop stewards. The unions must realise that unless they quickly reform their attitude public pressure will grow for

further steps to be taken. I agree with my hon. Friend that the 1980 Act is being used sensibly. It has been used to give remedies to people who have lost their jobs through closed shops, secondary picketing and secondary action.

Mr. Radice: If the 1980 Act is so satisfactory, why are the Government introducing a second Bill and promising to introduce a third?

Mr. Waddington: I thought that it was abundantly plain that new abuses had arisen since the passing of the 1980 Act.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Name them.

Mr. Waddington: Hon. Members may shout, but I should have thought that it was obvious that new abuses have occurred in closed shops and in union labour only clauses in contracts.

Training Boards

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Employment which statutory industrial training boards scheduled for abolition in 1982 he has visited; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I met the chairman and a number of members of every industrial training board last year before the Government took decisions on their future. I have made it clear that as and when any issue arises, I am always ready to discuss it personally with the chairmen of training boards.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that it is wrong to abolish the statutory training boards in such industries as distribution, paper products, and food and drink? Is not the way in which the boards operate with insufficient budgets and staffing a horror story? Have not the TUC and the CBI expressed concern at the incompetent manner in which the Department is handling these matters?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that where a single firm, such as Hoover at Perivale, is replaced after tragically folding, with several different types of concerns on the same site, industrial training boards do not have a direct application and that new mechanisms for training workers for the new jobs are required?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need a more flexible attitude towards training, and that is one of the principal elements in the new training initiative.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that there is general widespread unease about the proposed abolition of the training boards? Given the obvious lack of training in this country compared with our major competitors, will he please ensure that on the proposed voluntary arrangements we can establish what are the criteria and how the voluntary arrangements work on the basis of them, so that we can reverse his disastrous decision at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of the general unease, except from certain vested interests. I am aware that the Government have put training high on their list of priorities with the publication of the new training initiative, the backing to it and the £1,000 million a year given to the youth training scheme.

Mr. Fry: May I remind my hon. Friend that one of the training boards due for abolition relates to the footwear


and leather industries. Is he aware that about 500 further redundancies in that industry were announced last weekend in Northamptonshire alone? Will he therefore give some indication on behalf of the Government that there is some confidence in the future of the industry? Many of my constituents are extremely concerned that, with the abolition of the training boards and the continued decline of the industry, the Government might be abandoning a traditional, hardworking and loyal industry?

Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government have no lack of confidence in the footwear industry and that the proposed abolition of the Footwear, Leather and Fur Skin Industry Training Board should not give that indication.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the unemployment rates for the Northern region and the United Kingdom, respectively.

Mr. Alison: At 15 April the rates of unemployment in the Northern region and the United Kingdom were 16·3 per cent. and 12·6 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Dormand: Are not those figures disgraceful, particularly in view of the fact that in the Northern region unemployment has increased every month since this Government came to power? Instead of giving the usual bland and complacent reply that we always get on these occasions, will the Minister take note, and recommend the implementation, of many of the practical proposals that are made regularly by Labour Members? How long is he prepared to tolerate this desperate situation in the North?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know that, like him, I share dismay at the persistently high level of unemployment in the Northern region, which goes back over many years and is partly due to the fact that its dependence on traditional industries, notably shipbuilding and steel, have made the region extremely vulnerable to the downturn. However, large sums of money indeed—£400 million in the latest financial year—are being spent to try to make prospects there better, and there are some signs that jobs are coming along.

Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that the unemployment rate in the North-East is about to take a further leap? If the closure of the British Rail engineering works in Shildon takes place, unemployment will increase by a further 2,500 in that small town of 14,000 people. Will he take note of the fact that those employees of British Rail Engineering have done everything that has been required of them? They have been co-operative, have cut their costs, and for many years industrial relations have been excellent. Will the Minister give his attention to this problem and say what he is prepared to do about it?

Mr. Alison: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the British Rail Engineering Ltd. works at Shildon, Bishop Auckland. Both he and I can join together in hoping that productivity on British Rail will show some prospects of improving so that BR can expand.

Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that that was a complacent answer? In view of the appalling unemployment situation in the Northern region, which has doubled since the general election, is it not about time that the so-called Secretary of State for Employment got off his bottom and did something about it?

Mr. Alison: If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that the doubling in the level of unemployment since the general election has no connection whatever with the previous Government's appalling record of allowing pay and productivity to get out of step, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Mr. Charles Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that assessing unemployment on the basis of the jobless in travel-to-work areas is the most efficient method of determining unemployment statistics.

Mr. Waddington: Yes, Sir. The purpose of the unemployment rates calculated by my Department is to measure an area's need for jobs. I am satisfied that travel-to-work areas, which are relatively self-contained labour markets, are the smallest areas for which such unemployment rates can usefully be calculated.

Mr. Morris: Does not the Minister agree that assessing the number of jobless, particularly in the regional city areas, produces a statistical nonsense? Is he aware that in Manchester the travel-to-work area embraces Moss Side and Wimslow; in Liverpool it embraces Toxteth and Allerton; and that in Birmingham it embraces Handsworth and Solihull? Surely areas such as those, which contain such wide social disparities, produce statistical nonsense if used to assess unemployment.

Mr. Waddington: We know that great social problems are posed by high concentrations of unemployed persons in small areas. That is one of the reasons why we have an urban programme, from which Manchester and Oldham are benefiting. However, statistics that show unemployment in very small areas really prove nothing. The size of a travel-to-work area is determined by commuter patterns, so that one can discover what jobs are available to those who are able to travel to them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I recognise that some parts of Manchester have high levels of unemployment, but is my hon. and learned Friend able to indicate the level of unemployment in Manchester generally compared with the North-West?

Mr. Waddington: Nobody denies that the situation is serious, but unemployment in the Manchester travel-to-work area is 13·2 per cent., whereas it is 15·3 per cent. in the North-West as a whole.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister prepared to review the boundaries of travel-to-work areas where there have been substantial changes in travel-to-work patterns in recent years?

Mr. Waddington: We are always prepared to look at special cases, but the current travel-to-work area network was last reviewed in 1978 on the basis of the 1971 census. The network will be reviewed again when we have the complete figures of the 1981 census.

"Employers' Guide to Disabilities"

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will discuss with the Manpower Services Commission ways of bringing to the attention of employers the "Employers' Guide to Disabilities" published by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, of which he has received a copy.

Mr. Alison: The Manpower Services Commission is bringing the guide to the attention of employers through a variety of means, and in particular is planning to do so through the contacts its disablement resettlement officers have with individual employers. I am glad to have this opportunity warmly to welcome the guide, which will be a valuable aid to those concerned with the employment of disabled people.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend and his Department aware that often a disabled person is a conscientious and dedicated worker, because a job means so much to his self-respect and to his acceptance among the able-bodied? Will he continue to ensure that employers at the highest level realise the enormous importance of taking their share of employment from among the disabled?

Mr. Alison: Yes. I particularly endorse and note my hon. Friend's concluding point. As to the quality of disabled people in work, there is no doubt that, having taken on disabled people, many employers discover that they have a premium in their dedication, commitment and reliability.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to seeking to persuade employers, the Royal association is also in favour of retaining and strengthening the quota system, which has statutory backing?

Mr. Alison: I think that I can endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Jobcentre (Ponders End)

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with conditions for staff and applicants at Ponders End jobcentre.

Mr. Waddington: The employment office at Ponders End is in premises shared with the unemployment benefit office. Both these offices are at present overcrowded and conditions for both staff and applicants are not satisfactory. The commission proposes to open a small jobcentre in Enfield, just over a mile away, to which some work will be transferred. This will relieve pressure on both the employment and benefit offices.

Mr. Eggar: I recognise the inadequacy of the present premises, but does it really make sense to open a new centre that is both further away from jobs locally and a greater distance for many people to travel?

Mr. Waddington: The employment office at Ponders End is well known to my right hon. Friend, who not long ago registered there for his national service. I know that the conditions there have been unsatisfactory, and it was necessary to make some changes. I am told that this jobcentre, close to but not in the main Enfield shopping centre, is in the area where most of the job-seeking clients live and shop.

New Training Initiative

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make a further statement about the new training initiative.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans for a new youth training scheme.

Mr. Tebbit: With permission Mr. Speaker, I shall answer questions 15 and 17 together, and I hope that the House will forgive a slightly longer reply on this important matter.
I have received from the Manpower Services Commission the report of the youth task group, which the commission published today. The commission has endorsed the report.
The task group puts forward proposals that are of significance for future training arrangements for young school leavers, both employed and unemployed. The Government will consider the recommendations carefully, with a view to an early decision this summer, so that preparations can be made for a new scheme to replace the youth opportunities programme in September 1983. I understand that the Select Committee on Employment will be considering the report and I shall be glad to take into account any views it forms.
Despite a number of significant differences between the task group proposals and those of the White Paper, there is much common ground. They share the objective of proper training. Both give priority to the unemployed, including a guarantee to unemployed 16-year-olds, and both would develop the youth opportunities programme this year to lead into new arrangements from September 1983.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are grounds for general satisfaction that the TUC, CBI and other organisations in the task group have been able to agree on proposals to submit to the Minister, and does he accept that this is a significant and welcome step forward on the already commendable White Paper that he presented to the House?

Mr. Tebbit: I am glad that all sides have been able to make an agreed report to me, and although at the moment I cannot say in advance of my consideration what my final conclusion will be, I welcome that agreed report and the fact that the employers' side has been willing to put in large sums of money, above what the Government have proposed putting in.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend, as he develops his scheme, allow for continued expansion of the more worthwhile community service activities that are taking place at the moment? This is for two reasons: first, to expand the range of opportunities available to young people; and, secondly, to provide alternatives for those young people who find themselves in areas where the scheme that he is developing will not, unhappily, be able to develop quite as aptly as it will in other parts of the country.

Mr. Tebbit: I hope that alongside everything we do on the basis of this training scheme there will continue to be a substantial role for voluntary service generally.

Mr. Freud: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the instances in East Anglia where the Manpower Services Commission is reluctant to finance training for work on allotments? In view of the substantial amount of land and the high incidence of unemployment, will the Minister perhaps, have a word with the MSC?

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman were willing to write to me about any particular problem—or perhaps, more effectively, to write to the chairman of the MSC,


which has direct responsibility for these matters—I am sure that he would find that either the chairman or I would be helpful if we could be.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as well as creating over 5,000 redundancies at Shildon, Norwich and Swindon, the British Railways Board also intends to put into mothballs the apprentice training school at Swindon? Does he agree that this would be a disgraceful waste of excellent training facilities, and will he give me an assurance that he will do everything possible to make use of these facilities instead of closing them?

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that the chances of making good use of such facilities would be enormously increased if the staff of British Rail were willing to make full and proper use of the capital investment made in British Rail and get on with increasing productivity and moving on to better and more flexible ways of working.

Mr. John Grant: Will the Secretary of State accept that the MSC report excludes any element of compulsion for the youth training scheme? Will he accept that, so that we can have the maximum of speed and the maximum of support both throughout the industry and the House?

Mr. Tebbit: There has never been any proposal for any compulsion in this regard.

Mr. Stott: Should not the Secretary of State for Employment have been better briefed before coming to the Dispatch Box to reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart)? The workers in British Rail Engineering have contributed magnificently to productivity agreements, and over the past 10 years their record has been faultless.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that great strides have been made in increasing productivity in the engineering works. However, the engineering works do not exist in their own right, but as a support for running the railway. There is clearly a pressing need for greater productivity on that railway.

Training Boards

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of staff of industrial training boards, of all grades, made redundant up to 30 March 1982 on account of the winding up of 16 of the boards.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Between 16 November 1981 and 30 March 1982, 424 ITB staff had been made redundant as a result of the proposed winding-up of 16 industrial training boards.

Mr. Hooley: What evidence does the Minister have that the work of these people is being replaced in any way by individual employers in private industry?

Mr. Morrison: The majority of employers' organisations have come forward with voluntary proposals on a satisfactory basis. When the orders are laid before the House it will have an opportunity to debate them.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the training that took place within industry was largely carried out by the companies themselves and that, in later years, the training boards had become a bureaucracy monitoring that training?

Mr. Morrison: I agree that training in industry has been almost completely carried out by industry itself and that the boards concerned were monitoring that training. In some cases, at least, they had become rather over-bureaucratic.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Minister will recall that last week, before the Select Committee, his right hon. Friend gave an undertaking to supply the Select Committee with information about the voluntary arrangements that were replacing the boards to be wound up, but refused to give an undertaking that that information would be made available to the House before we debated the winding-up of the boards? Will the Minister think again about that and recognise the importance of the House having the fullest information before it reaches this crucial decision?

Mr. Morrison: I recall that my right hon. Friend made it clear last week before the Select Committee that he would provide the information to the Select Committee. He will also inform the House of the progress being made towards voluntary training arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the right hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). In addition to my duties in the House I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the terrible loss of life in the South Atlantic and the rapidly escalating military confrontation, will the Prime Minister make a further effort today to reach a peaceful solution to the situation, involving probably the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: We all regret the loss of human life in the South Atlantic, but our first duty is to protect, and to minimise the danger to, our own forces in the South Atlantic, who are there because we all agreed that we should send a task force——

Mr. Cryer: I did not, so do not start dragging me into your rotten schemes.

Mr. Foulkes: I did not.

The Prime Minister: —because we all agreed that we must stop the invader, and because the vast majority of people in the House recognise that the best way to stop the trouble is to withdraw the forces from the Falkland Islands. Of course, the effort to seek a peaceful solution continues, and will continue vigorously. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be reporting later on his visit to the United Nations. We shall pursue a peaceful settlement either there or through other means.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend say over and over again that until the Argentine Government withdraw their troops from the Falkland Islands, every injury and fatality in the Southern Atlantic is absolutely due to the action of the Argentine junta?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it was the Argentines who broke the peace with unprovoked aggression. They are on British sovereign territory and there are British people under the heel of the junta. We sent the task force to rectify that situation. We hope to do so by all peaceful means and shall continue to try to do so. In the meantime, our first duty must be to protect our boys.

Mr. Foot: May I press the right hon. Lady on the question of the sinking of the cruiser and the tragic loss of life involved? We are all deeply concerned about it, just as we all are deeply aware that the origin of the crisis was the aggression by the Argentine. None the less, the Government have direct responsibilities in this matter, and the right hon. Lady especially so. Can she tell us what political control there was over this development, which was a major development? Can she say what calculations about the minimum use of force entered into those considerations?
Returning to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), can the right hon. Lady tell us exactly what are the next steps that will be taken by the Government to try to deal with the situation? There is always the danger that such an event as the sinking of the ship will recur and that it can put our Service men in danger. We on the Labour side of the House are as determined to protect them as anybody in the country.

The Prime Minister: I wholly share the right hon. Gentleman's view that we must protect the lives of our own Service men, whose great skill and courage we applaud and admire. With regard to that particular event, and all events other than the mere tactical ones in the South Atlantic, the task force clearly is and was under political control. I want to make it perfectly clear that after the announcement of the maritime exclusion zone—I referred to the matter in the House last week—there was another announcement on 23 April, which was communicated to the Argentine Government and also to the United Nations. It may help if I read it in full:
In announcing the establishment of a maritime exclusion zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection, Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries, or military aircraft which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of the British forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response".
The warning was given to the Argentine Government, I repeat, on 23 April. It was reported to the United Nations on 24 April.

Mr. Foot: All of us can understand the documents that have been put in the Library on this matter, but the right hon. Lady has not fully explained why such a development as this occurred in the circumstances in which it did occur, nor has she explained why the maximum amount—or, at any rate, a considerable amount—of force was used to carry it out. None of these things has been explained. They will need to be explained much more fully to the country and to others. Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that these are important matters for our own Service men, whom we wish to protect as much as anyone? They are also important for the support that this Government may command throughout the world in these matters. If the

right hon. Lady and the Government do not appreciate that the sinking of the cruiser raises great questions of this kind, she does not understand the situation.

The Prime Minister: May I make it perfectly clear that the worry that I live with hourly is that attacking Argentine forces, either naval or air, may get through to ours and sink some of our ships. I am sure that that will also be in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. There was clear aggressive intent on the part of the Argentine fleet and Government. It could be seen first in their claims. They previously claimed that they had sunk HMS "Exeter", that they had damaged HMS "Hermes", leaving it inoperative and badly damaged, and that they had brought down 11 Harriers. That was clear evidence of Argentine aggressive intent. The right hon. Gentleman may also remember the persistent attacks throughout the whole of Saturday on our task force, which were repelled only by the supreme skill and courage of our people. He may also know, or will hear from my right hon. Friend, of the very heavy armaments that the cruiser carried, and, of course, the cruiser was accompanied by two destroyers, which were not attacked in any way.

Mr. Mates: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, of all the uses to which the word has been put in the last weeks, the word "paramount" applies most of all now to the safety and lives of our Service men in the south Atlantic? Will she further agree that the House of Commons, having agreed to send the task force to back up our diplomacy, cannot now flinch from the consequences that may occur, however serious they are?

The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. Our first duty is to our own forces, who are there on our orders and with our support. We must look after their safety. Our second duty is to see that we try to use minimum force. However, that cruiser and the asssociated destroyers—and, of course, there are other task forces of the Argentine Navy also at large in the South Atlantic, not far from the exclusion zone—posed a very obvious threat to the men in our task force. Had we left it any later it would have been too late and I might have had to come to the House with the news that some of our ships had been sunk.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the Falkland Islands.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for Defence will be making full statements after questions on recent diplomatic and military developments respectively.

Mr. Dalyell: When the Prime Minister referred to political control, did she herself, personally and explicitly, authorise the firing of the torpedoes at the "General Belgrano"?

The Prime Minister: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the task force is and was under full political control.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Would not some of the ignorant and irresponsible questions coming from the Opposition have been avoided if the Leader of the Opposition had done his duty to his party, to the country, and as a Privy Councillor, by availing himself of the


invitation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to acquaint him with matters to which we, who are not sworn of the Privy Council, do not wish to have access because we have confidence in her handling of this affair and in Her Majesty's Forces?

The Prime Minister: It is for the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he will avail himself of any offer to talk on Privy Councillor terms.

Mr. William Hamilton: No.

The Prime Minister: It is for the right hon. Gentleman to decide whether he will avail himself of the invitation.

Mr. Hamilton: It is for us, too.

The Prime Minister: Apart from that, it may concern right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on that side. He did not wish to do so. In the meantime, I beg him to have some regard for the practical considerations that affect our operations in the South Atlantic.

Mr. Foot: Would the right hon. Lady care to read to the House what she said about the matter of consultations on "Panorama" a few days ago? Will she also repeat to the House what I think she understood well before, namely, the attitude that has been taken by many Opposition leaders in previous times, who thought that they would be failing in their duty to the House of Commons if they were to gag themselves? If the leader of the Liberal Party wants to do it, he is perfectly entitled to do so. I should be very happy if the right hon. Lady would read to the House and country her own words on this subject.

The Prime Minister: I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's decision in any way. I made an offer available to him on the same basis as I did to the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal Party and to the leader of the SDP in this House. Whether he takes it up is a matter for him. I have been in a similar position. There have been times when I have taken the offer up and times when I have not.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: On the subject of the cruiser, how can anyone maintain that such a ship, armed in that way, and accompanied by those destroyers, was not a threat to our forces? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the first communiqué about the sinking from the Argentine side said that the ship was all right, except for damage to its steering? If that were true, does it not show that minimum force was then used?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The cruiser posed a real threat to our forces then, and would have continued to do so in the coming days.

Mr. Grimond: In view of these events in the South Atlantic, has not the time now come for a fresh, direct approach by Her Majesty's Government to the junta proposing that the Argentines evacuate the Falkland Islands, so that negotiations can then be entered into directly between us? After all, we are still not at war with the Argentine.

The Prime Minister: At the moment we prefer to make our approaches through a third party. Mr. Haig did valiant work, and it is clear that he is still interested in trying to bring about a solution, both through his own efforts and, as the right hon. Gentleman may have read, through certain initiatives that are being undertaken by Mr. Haig through the Peruvian Government, and which we are pursuing vigorously. We have not gone through the junta itself. It is not easy to see with whom one would be negotiating, whether it would be the president, other members of the junta or the generals behind it. Throughout, that has been a very difficult problem.

Engagements

Mr. Brinton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brinton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she still has massive support for her Government's policies on the Falkland Islands? Is she also aware that there are two former colonies in the world today with populations of fewer than 8,000 and about 20 countries which have; less land area than the Falkland Islands? Will she ensure; that Britain does not deviate from its determination to demonstrate that armed, unprovoked aggression must never pay?

The Prime Minister: I believe that what my hon. Friend says about there being small countries in the Commonwealth and countries with smaller areas than the Falkland Islands is correct. I entirely agree that unless Britain manages to stop and undo the Argentine aggression, many other small countries and territories will go in fear that they may suffer the same fate.

Falkland Islands

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): Since we debated the Falklands crisis last Thursday, there have been some important military developments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will report on those in a few minutes. Meanwhile, I wish to pay tribute to the efficiency and courage of our forces. Our relief that British lives have not been lost is inevitably tempered by our deep regret at Argentine casualties. I know that the whole House would wish to be associated with these sentiments.
These military achievements have been in support of our overall strategy; they have not been, and will not become, a substitute for it. As the House knows, we are maintaining the maximum pressure on Argentina in the diplomatic, economic and military fields with the objective of securing Argentine withdrawal at the earliest possible moment and in compliance with the mandatory resolution of the United Nations Security Council.
The military pressure that we have exercised has been challenged despite our clear warnings and our desire to use the minimum force. Our response in the circumstances was as inevitable as it was right. However, I can assure the House that what we are seeking is not the military humiliation of Argentina but a victory for the rule of law in international affairs.
Since the House last met, I have visited Washington and New York to reinforce our diplomatic efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement as soon as possible. I had extensive talks with Secretary Haig. These covered the diplomatic, economic and military dimensions of the crisis.
On the diplomatic side, Mr. Haig made it clear that, just as we have not abandoned our diplomatic endeavours following Argentina's rejection of the earlier American proposals, nor has he. We discussed a range of ideas for a settlement. We are continuing our work with all urgency. As the House will be aware, other Governments have also been active in promoting a settlement. We welcome this and are in close touch with them. Therefore, we are working actively on various ideas, including those put forward by the President of Peru. I can assure the House that we are losing no time in developing our thoughts about them and communicating our constructive views to those concerned. The framework for a settlement remains as I have outlined it to the House.
Proposals are needed which cover the essential elements of resolution 502—withdrawal, and negotiations on the future, unprejudiced in any way. They must also address the interim arrangements and guarantees required.
On the economic front, Mr. Haig described the measures which the United States has recently announced. They are a tangible sign of American support for our cause. I know that the Americans have not closed their mind to additional steps.
On the military front, Mr. Haig and Mr. Weinberger confirmed that they are ready to provide material support for our forces and I welcomed this. We are following it up in detail and urgently.
In New York I discussed diplomatic possibilities with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and with the President of the Security Council. I made it clear to them

that our immediate concern is the implementation of resolution 502, and that we are open to any ideas which would achieve this on a satisfactory basis, namely, an Argentine withdrawal followed by negotiations on the long-term solution without prejudice to basic principles.
We were able to consider together the various possible ways of involving the United Nations. We recognised that a solution will require not only the right ideas but the right timing and the right sequence of events. I know that the Secretary-General is in touch with the Argentine Government. The burden of compliance with what has already been decided, of course, rests squarely with them.
It must not be forgotten that we remain the victims of a totally unprovoked act of aggression in defiance of the United Nations charter. We are seeking to ensure that Argentina does not profit from aggression and to uphold the rule of law in international affairs. That is an interest which all members of the United Nations must share.
Our resolve should not be doubted, nor should our readiness to talk and our will for peace.

Mr. Denis Healey: I shall not be drawn into discussing now the military operations of the weekend as the Secretary of State for Defence is about to make a statement on them, except to join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the courage and efficiency shown by our forces.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Haig, in announcing the shift in American policy on Friday, said that
a purely military outcome cannot endure over time. There will have to be a negotiated solution. Otherwise we will all face unending hostility and insecurity in the South Atlantic.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government share those views, because they are shared unanimously by Labour Members.
There is deep concern among Labour Members and many of our allies in case certain types of military action—the attack on the cruiser "General Belgrano" may be such an instance—intended, as the Foreign Secretary said, to back up negotiations, may weaken or even destroy the possibility of negotiations for a long-term solution. He must be aware from telegrams that have been received in the Foreign Office this morning that the operations of the last few days have already cost us a great deal of support among our European allies.
On Friday Mr. Haig said that he had reason to hope that the United Kingdom would consider a settlement along the lines of his proposals. We understand from newspaper reports that Mr. Haig's proposals were put again, although perhaps in a modified form, by the Peruvian Government in the past two days.
Has not the time now come when the Foreign Secretary should tell us a little bit about those proposals as it is the Argentine failure to acceot them which has led to the military action over the past few days and the shift in American policy? The House has the right to that information at this time because it is now being made available to Governments in many other parts of the world.
Finally, may I ask the Foreign Secretary about his visit to the United Nations? I understand from newspaper reports that the Common Market Commission will put to the Council of Ministers this week the proposal that the continuing support of the Common Market for the British position over the Falkland Islands should depend on our asking the Secretary-General of the United Nations to provide his good offices. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the Argentine Foreign Minister, at a meeting


last Friday, invited the Secretary-General to give his good offices. He will know that the Secretary-General is able to do so if we, as the other party to the dispute, ask him to do so. Has the Foreign Secretary asked Mr. Costa Mendez to take over the role of intermediary—[Interruption.] I am sorry; we all make mistakes of that nature, as did the Prime Minister a moment ago in Question Time. Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the United Nations Secretary-General to take over the role of intermediary at this time? If he has not, why not?
Over the weekend the Foreign Secretary said that it was Her Majesty's Government's intention to secure the withdrawal of Argentine forces by negotiation. The Government refuse to negotiate directly with the Argentine Government so long as Argentine troops are still on the Falkland Islands. If they are not prepared to negotiate directly, will they ask the United Nations to take over the role of intermediary?
I hope that there is no truth in the newspaper reports of the past two days that the only reason why the right hon. Gentleman visited the United Nations this weekend was to appease opinion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. We believe that the time has come when the United Nations must play the central role in securing the withdrawal of Argentine troops from the Falkland Islands and that it will have a very important role in implementing the ultimate settlement.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman is less than fair when he suggests that what I have done during this weekend and in previous weeks is anything other than to do everything that I conceivably can to bring about "a negotiated settlement as soon as possible", the words that I used in my statement. We do not yet know whether that can be achieved, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in the end, whenever that is, there must be a negotiated settlement. The sooner that it comes, the better it will be. That is what my expedition was intended to try to further.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary-General is in touch with the Argentine Government and is talking with them in the same way that he is talking with me. He did not describe himself as an intermediary, but, as he is in touch with both Governments, I suppose that one could describe that as his position. I have had many talks with him about the various possibilities, but the essential point remains that the Argentines are already under a mandatory obligation to withdraw. One problem that the United Nations faces is how to ensure that that withdrawal is carried out. That must be a precondition for taking matters further. The other essential condition is that the Argentines must come off their hook of saying that the outcome of the negotiations should be predetermined in favour of Argentina. That clearly cannot be acceptable. It may be that the Argentines will move from both those positions, in which case we may make a real advance.
I visited not only the United Nations but Mr. Haig to explore all those matters. Although the United Nations is a possible forum and can help in many ways, there are other possibilities, and I referred in my statement to the work that is going on, based on ideas that originated with Peru. The original American proposals were rejected last week by the Argentines. We are now working on a new series of proposals. I shall make a constructive input to those proposals and I am already doing so. They are different in character, but they cover the same area that I

mentioned in last week's debate—withdrawal, what happens in the interim, and the final negotiations. Whatever detail is discussed, it must cover those areas. That is what we are pursuing actively, constructively and positively, as I am sure the House wishes.
That is the present position. It is difficult in the United Nations at the moment for the simple reason that the mandatory resolution has not been fulfilled by the Argentines. The right hon. Gentleman is right in intimating that one member of the European Community raised a matter with the president of the Security Council today. There may be a meeting, but I do not yet know what specific proposal will be put to the Security Council. That is perhaps not as important as the search for the means by which we can achieve a negotiated settlement.
Another matter on which I must comment, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will come to it in a moment, is the military action, which is essentially directed to securing the total exclusion zone of which we gave due notice. We declared a maritime exclusion zone, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred, which was subsequently extended. The action that has been taken so far is wholly in accordance with the principles that we outlined and the warnings that we gave in advance.

Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary has made two important statements. First, he said that he believed that the word "intermediary" might be appropriate to de scribe the function that is now being carried out by the United Nations Secretary-General. Secondly—I am surprised that he did not tell the House this in his original statement—he said that a member of the European Community was already in touch with the United Nations Secretary-General with a view to calling a meeting of the Security Council.
The Foreign Secretary will be well aware that there is a defined procedure at the United Nations under which the Secretary-General can operate a good offices role, either personally or by appointing an individual or individuals, in order to bring hostile parties together to solve a problem. In the light of the information that the Foreign Secretary gave us about another possible meeting of the Security Council, it is now very urgent, in the interests of the United Kingdom, that, the Argentine Foreign Minister having already asked the Secretary-General to assume that role, we should do the same now so that no time is lost and the future is not prejudiced, as I warned the right hon. Gentleman in our debate last week it might be. by a decision of the Security Council which might be much more hostile to our interests than the present one.

Mr. Pym: The Security Council has already passed resolution 502, which requires the Argentines to withdraw. That is the basic position. British sovereign territory has been invaded and, during the past three weeks, the Argentine forces have been heavily reinforced. Clearly the first move must be an Argentine withdrawal from that territory. The Secretary-General is in touch with the Argentine Government, as I made clear in my statement, and one of his objectives is to ensure that resolution 502 is implemented.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I have had no direct communication from any member of the European Community. However, it is on the tapes and it has been made public knowledge that one member has


taken certain action. I shall comment upon that and react to it when I hear from the member State what it intends. However, not only the Secretary-General but the President of the Security Council had consultations throughout yesterday—no doubt they continued today—with all the members of the Security Council. Therefore, the United Nations' work on this important crisis is very active.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow 20 minutes for questions on this statement, as I have allowed on previous statements. Another statement is to follow.

Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the British public are behind the Government in their resolution against the naked aggression of the Argentines? Is it not regrettable that the right hon. Members for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) have recently made statements that have been used by the Argentine Government as propaganda to hoodwink the Argentine people? Is it not a disgrace that two Privy Councillors should make statements which can be used by the Argentine Government and which could extend hostilities and jeopardise British lives?

Mr. Pym: A number of right hon. and hon. Members would agree with my hon. Friend's remarks. The propaganda and the information put out by Argentina has been proved to be extremely inaccurate in many important respects—indeed deliberately misleading, no doubt for its own purposes. During my visit to America I gave an assurance that what we put out from our forces would be accurate and true. The Argentine junta is carrying on a misleading campaign of propaganda such as we have seen before which in the end does the country no good. However, it will be helpful if we speak with the greatest unity that we can possibly achieve.

Dame Judith Hart: In view of the Foreign Secretary's remark that there must be negotiation, does he agree that it would be helpful in that negotiation if there was now a truce on both sides so that the matter could now go to the United Nations without further loss of life?

Mr. Pym: There can be a truce, but Argentina must withdraw and there must be no prejudgment of the ultimate outcome of the negotiations in the longer term.

Dr. David Owen: May I associate the SDP with the expressions of regret at the loss of life of the Argentinian Service men and also pay tribute to the courage and skill of the British Service men who have been operating in very difficult circumstances?
Will the Foreign Secretary say a little more about the initiative taken by the President of Peru? Is not Peru uniquely well placed to act in that way, as a friend of the Argentine and with close relations with the United States and friendly relations with Britain—quite apart from its association with the Secretary-General of the United Nations? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about taking up that initiative? Is he ready to negotiate without precondition, and would such negotiations include the acceptance of a readiness to talk about the trusteeship council provision?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. The President of Peru formulated

a series of proposals which he communicated to the United States and directly to the Argentines, who turned them down. With Mr. Haig, I am responding positively to the ideas contained in the proposal and I will communicate some ideas of my own which may lead to a possible basis. I should not like to raise undue hopes, but I will do everything that I can.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of negotiations without preconditions, but there must be the precondition of the withdrawal of Argentine forces, who have no right to be in the Falkland Islands and no prejudice to the ultimate negotiations. Then we could start talking. In the longer term, I hope sooner rather than later, when we sit round the table to discuss the longer-term solution there will be a range of possibilities that could and should be discussed. Our immediate worry and anxiety is to get into a position where we can start talking at the negotiating table.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the support that he has on the Back Benches for his untiring work in the United States to obtain a start to negotiations. Was the safety of the Falkland Islanders raised in any of his discussions? Is there any way that negotiations would provide for the temporary evacuation of the women and children of the Falkland Islands? Can my right hon. Friend give me any message for the many Falkland Islanders who now reside in my constituency?

Mr. Pym: I have had the islanders very much in my mind all the time and I appreciate the risks that they are incurring and the difficulties that they face. I have sent messages to them when I have had the opportunity to do so, and I have thought about the possibility of an evacuation. It would be difficult to arrange, but if the islanders want it and we could arrange it we would naturally provide a passage for them. However, I do not think that that would be easy now. I have thought about the possibility a great deal and have tried to involve the International Red Cross and to do whatever I can.
We must never forget that we are involved in this crisis and are taking the major steps that we are taking because of the people who live on British territory. It is for them that this started. They have been denied certain rights and the Argentines wish to impose on them a certain sort of rule which they may or may not want. We are there in the defence of those people's rights. That is why we got involved in the first place and we must never forget that.

Mr. John Morris (Averavon): Did the Secretary-General of the United Nations tell the Foreign Secretary what he had in mind about how resolution 502 could be implemented?

Mr. Pym: No, he did not. There is a very great difficulty for the United Nations over that. The Secretary-General did not put any specific suggestions to me. Naturally, in expressing and explaining the British point of view to him, I was anxious to hear what views and ideas he had. He had a number and we discussed them, but there was nothing specific. Similarly, the President of the Security Council had no specific proposal to put before me immediately, but we explored the area together and that was useful. We are in daily touch and more often than that through our ambassador.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman referred to negotiations to take place after the


repossession of the islands. Will he tell the House on what subjects it would be proper, in the Government's view, for those negotiations to take place?

Mr. Pym: The basis on which they should take place is the charter of the United Nations. As to the format, there are a number of possible ways in which it could be done; that has not yet been decided. There are a number of options and we have an open mind about them, but the most urgent requirement is to get into a position where those negotiations can take place.

Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend speaks of a readiness to negotiate, but what does he have in mind that is negotiable? Surely if the Falkland Islanders are in his mind he cannot contemplate discussions over sovereignty, which would mean the handing over of the Falkland Islanders to a State which has almost the worst human rights record in the world. Is it the Government's intention at any time to raise with the United Nations the question of investigating the disappearance of thousands of Argentines, the use of torture and behaviour that puts that country completely outside the pale of civilisation?

Mr. Pym: The sovereignty question is the heart of the issue and dispute. For years we have been negotiating about the future status of the islands.

Sir Bernard Braine: That is what is wrong.

Mr. Pym: But that is a matter of history. That is what has been happening. We are not in any doubt about our title to the Falkland Islands, and we never have been. We have been governing, administering and having a British presence on the islands for the people there and we have always taken full account of their views. The Argentines assert that they have sovereignty and they now assert that they are not prepared to negotiate about it. That is not an acceptable position.
As to the long-term future of the islands, successive British Governments have taken the view that if the people there wished to have a different sort of Government or to organise their affairs in another way the British Government would not stand in their way. We are there as trustees for those people. That is the issue. We are not prepared to enter negotiations while Argentina remains so obdurate in upholding a claim which it believes is valid but which we are confident is not valid.

Mr. Frank Hooley: If the Security Council is faced with a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, will the United Kingdom veto it?

Mr. Pym: In so far as we are engaged in military operations, we are doing so in self-defence under the United Nations charter. The way that we have done it is by declaring—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Yes, on the conditions that I have just stated—that there is a withdrawal of forces and no prejudice to the ultimate solution. That is quite clear. In the meantime, in preserving British territory and British citizens, we have said that we will secure the total exclusion zone, and that is what we are engaged in doing.

Mr. Patrick: Will my right hon. Friend lose no chance to point out that the responsibility for the tragic deaths in the South Atlantic lies fairly and squarely with President Galtieri and his

junta? Will he also point out that any negotiations would become extremely difficult if British lives were lost or British ships sunk?

Mr. Pym: The truth is— and it cannot he said too often—that the Argentines started this trouble. They invaded the islands, which they had no right to dc. That was the cause of the whole trouble and that is where the blame lies. The condition for making any progress is that they withdraw. Any casualty suffered in the meantime, on whichever side, is a tradegy. That is one reason why we have a real incentive to achieve a negotiated settlement, but it requires two to do that and it is up to the Argentines to withdraw and to have no prejudice about the final settlement that may be achieved. Then we can get round the table in a civilised way and discuss the issue as it ought to be discussed.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is it not the case that despite the right hon. Gentleman's vigorous diplomatic efforts, on which he is to be congratulated, the essence of his statement is "no progress"? Given that fact, why has not the right hon. Gentleman maintained the closest contact possible with our Community partners to prevent, for example, action by one member with the United Nations such as he mentioned in his response to the question of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

Mr. Pym: It may seem that the essence of my statement is "no progress". Perhaps that is a fair description, but, given the data of the problem, the differences between the two sides, the intransigence of the Argentines and their unlawful occupation of British sovereign territory, it is hardly surprising that it would take some time to arrive at a negotiated settlement.
A week after I came to my present office, I went over to Brussels to keep our Community partners informed. I saw them last week and again kept them informed. I have had other contacts with them this week. This weekend I shall see the Foreign Ministers of the other countries in the Community, who are my opposite numbers. Therefore, I have kept in close touch with them. They have been supportive and helpful. I have had no communication direct from any member in any opposite sense. I referred earlier to a newsflash that I had seen on the tape before I came into the Chamber. There is close contact between me and the other countries, which I intend to maintain.

Mr. Tony Benn: Has the Foreign Secretary's attention been drawn to the fact that in The Sunday Times a public opinion poll showed that six out of 10 people in Britain were not prepared to see one Service man's life or a Falkland islander's life put at risk and that such a majority in Britain will not be rejoicing with the Prime Minister at the loss of life when the ship—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] —was torpedoed without a declaration of war well outside the exclusion zone? Will the Foreign Secretary take account of the desire for peace in Britain by agreeing to a ceasefire and to the transfer at once to the United Nations of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and its administration pending a settlement under United Nations auspices?

Mr. Pym: In making those points and others that he makes from time to time, which may be controversial and with which many people disagree, it is disgraceful for the right hon. Gentleman to attribute to my right hon. Friend


the Prime Minister the reaction that he has alleged. I believe that it is utterly wrong to impute such motives or thoughts when they are untrue. That spoils the validity of everything else that the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. John Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend regard it as indicative that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) should base himself and his argument upon one answer to a question in a popular opinion poll? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it seems to be the general pattern of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to put all sorts of sombre prophecies and suggestions into cold storage to be extracted perhaps one day to his own advantage at a moment of disadvantage to his country?

Mr. Pym: I think that a number of hon. Members would agree with my right hon. Friend. What the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has said this afternoon was disgraceful.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: As the transfer of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands has been considered for 20 years or so, and as the Prime Minister has now had her skirmish in this atavistic and unnecessary exercise in the South Atlantic, which she and the chairman of the Conservative Party have launched, will the Government today order a suspension of hostilities before many more young men are unnecessarily killed and transfer the solution of the problem to where it should be, the United Nations, where eventually a negotiated settlement will have to be reached anyway?

Mr. Pym: I dissociate myself from the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Once withdrawal has taken place

and there is no prejudice to the outcome of the long-term negotiations, of course there will be a ceasefire. This issue is already before the United Nations. We took it there right away. Opposition Members sometimes seem to forget that. The United Nations passed a resolution requiring the Argentines to withdraw. We want that to be fulfilled and then we can get down to proper long-term negotiations. The hon. Gentleman's deliberate misdescription of what we are doing is not helpful.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If, as has been suggested by the right hon. Members for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), and Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) and the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), negotiations take place while the Argentines are in occupation, will not that be accepting aggression, which will be regretted not only by the Labour Party but by many other countries?

Mr. Pym: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. To take such a course would be to acknowledge that an act of aggression could pay the invader. That cannot be allowed. Incidentally, it would be in breach of the resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council. This is not just an argument between Britain and the Argentine. Its implications are wider. We are talking about international order and conducting the affairs of the world on the basis of law and in peace. That is what the United Nations is for. If we carry that through—we hope by peaceful settlement, but ultimately by a settlement-and if we right this wrong, I predict that the world, at any rate for a few years ahead, will be a more peaceful place than it was before. The re-establishment of international order on proper rules will bring an enormous amount of relief to an enormous number of countries and millions of individuals.

Falkland Islands

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about recent naval engagements in the South Atlantic, following the operation conducted by our forces to repossess the British sovereign territory of South Georgia.
In the House on 7 April I announced that our first naval action would be to deny the Argentine forces on the Falklands the means of sea reinforcement and resupply from the mainland. British submarines have achieved that objective. With the arrival of our task force on 30 April our next move was to stop reinforcement and resupply from the air, as well as by sea. Since the passing of resolution 502 the Argentines, instead of withdrawing, had continuously reinforced the islands. We gave two days' prior warning to the Argentine Government of the imposition of this total exclusion zone, and our task force is now enforcing it.
The task force was despatched to the South Atlantic with the support of the House and, I believe, of the country. Since its arrival in these waters our overriding duty has been to protect our task force against attack by Argentine forces.
We made it very clear to the Argentine Government and to the United Nations more than a week ago, on 23 April, that the Government would exercise their rights of self-defence to the full, including the use of force under article 51 of the United Nations charter if this proved necessary to protect our fleet.
I shall now describe the military sequence of events. Air attacks by Vulcan and Sea Harrier aircraft against Port Stanley airfield were launched early on 1 May. The runway was cratered and rendered unusable by transport aircraft from the Argentine mainland. A further sortie was made today to render the airstrip unusable for light supply, communications and ground attack aircraft operating within the Falkland Islands themselves. The other main airfield on East Falkland at Goose Green has also effectively been put out of action.
On 1 May the Argentines launched attacks on our ships, during most of the daylight hours. The attacks by Argentine Mirage and Canberra aircraft operating from the mainland were repulsed by British Sea Harriers. Had our Sea Harriers failed to repulse the attacks on the task force, our ships could have been severely damaged or sunk. In fact, one Argentine Canberra and one Mirage were shot down and others were damaged. We believe that another Mirage was brought down by Argentine anti-aircraft fire. One of our frigates suffered splinter damage as a result of the air attacks and there was one British casualty whose condition is now satisfactory. All our aircraft returned safely. On the same day our forces located and attacked what was believed to be an Argentine submarine which was clearly in a position to torpedo our ships. It is not known whether the submarine was hit.
The prolonged air attack on our ships, the presence of an Argentine submarine close by, and all other information available to us, left us in no doubt of the dangers to our task force from hostile action.
The next day, 2 May, at 8 pm London time, one of our submarines detected the Argentine cruiser, "General Belgrano", escorted by two destroyers. This heavily armed surface attack group was close to the total exclusion zone

and was closing on elements of our task force, which was only hours away. We knew that the cruiser itself has substantial fire power, provided by 15 6in guns, with a range of 13 miles, and Seacat anti-aircraft missiles. Together with its escorting destroyers, which we believe were equipped with Exocet anti-ship missiles with a range of more than 20 miles, the threat to the task force was such that the task force commander could ignore it only at his peril.
The House will know that the attack by our submarine involved the capital ship only and not its escorting destroyers, so that they should have been able to go to the assistance of the damaged cruiser. We do not know whether they did so, but, in so doing, they would not have been engaged.
On 3 May, at about 4 am London time, a Sea King helicopter keeping watch against submarine attack around the task force was fired on by an Argentine ocean-going patrol craft. This vessel was then attacked and sunk by a Lynx helicopter. A second Lynx then came under attack from another Argentine vessel, which was itself attacked and damaged.
It must be a matter of deep concern to the House that there has been loss of life from these engagements including the sinking of the "General Belgrano", but our first duty must be the protection of our own ships and men. There may be further attacks on our forces and they must be allowed to act in self-defence. We cannot deny them that right. Nor must we forget that military action began by an attack on British marines and the forcible seizure of British territory. The way of stopping the fighting forthwith is for the Argentines to withdraw their garrison from the Falkland Islands in compliance with the United Nations resolution 502.

Mr. Denis Healey: The right hon. Gentleman rightly said in his press conference last night that his policy was and would always be to use minimum force under strict political control to achieve a diplomatic solution. I confess that it is not always easy to achieve that in the stress of battle. Nevertheless, on the evidence that he has just given, it seems that he has successfully achieved that objective, first, in the reoccupation of South Georgia; secondly, in the attacks on the airfield; and military facilities on the Falkland Islands; and, thirdly, in the actions that he has just described within the total exclusion zone.
I shall address my questions entirely to the action against the Argentine cruiser "General Belgrano". The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were concerned about the loss of life that had occurred. I understand that the action took place 36 miles outside the total exclusion zone. Although it appears now that there have not been 1,000 lives lost, as we feared earlier, the number must run into many hundreds. As I said in questions to the Foreign Secretary after his statement, the loss of life is already causing great concern among our friends and allies all over the world.
Almost two days after the event it should be possible for the Secretary of State to give the House more details than were in his statement. It is in both his and the Government's interest to do so if widespread international concern about the incident is to be allayed.
First, will the right hon. Gentleman say how far the Argentine ships were from the task force? He said that they were hours away. I hope that he will forgive me for saying


that that phrase is far too ambiguous and uncertain. It makes a big difference whether they were 50, 100 or 300 miles away. Any of those distances could be described as "hours away".
Secondly, what were the two escorting destroyers? Were they by any chance the type 42 frigate that Britain sold to the Argentine?
Thirdly, if the attack was necessary to protect our forces, could not action have been taken to cripple rather than to sink the cruiser? With respect, if the Government have pledged themselves to the minimum use of force, they must issue instructions that ensure that minimum force is used. I accept that it is not easy for submarines that were designed for global war against a great power to exercise the use of minimum force in a police action against a minor power. There remains the question whether it was possible to cripple the cruiser rather than to sink it, as was done to the submarine off South Georgia. That question deserves to be answered.
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Press Association reported earlier today that the "General Belgrano" had fired first and then later withdrew that statement as not being true?
I ask these questions in no carping spirit. If it is indeed the Government's intention at all times to use minimum force to achieve a political solution, they must avoid risking the lives of half of the population of the Falkland Islands in a single engagement.

Mr. Nott: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. I said at a press conference yesterday that it was our policy to use minimum force. The task force remains under the political control of the Government. It operates within a political framework. Nevertheless, in exercising minimum force it must bear in mind the overriding need not to endanger itself—our own men and our own ships.
We believe that the action took place just outside—about 35 miles—the total exclusion zone. However, as I said in my statement, the cruiser and the escorting destroyers were only hours' steaming time away. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many hours?] The right hon. Gentleman asked for the precise distance. I cannot give it, as I am not prepared to reveal the position of our task force. Nor can I give full details of the exact composition of the Argentine forces operating against us. The right hon. Gentleman will know, because he, too, has been Secretary of State for Defence, that communications are not necessarily received instantly by a submarine. It sometimes takes time for communications to be made, for reasons that have to do with the natural concealment of the submarine, but the group was hours away from our task force.
Only two torpedoes were fired at the cruiser. It is impossible to say whether that would have crippled the cruiser—that could not be predicted—but, having fired its torpedoes, the submarine clearly could not remain in the area without endangering itself. Therefore, in accordance with normal procedures, it fired the two torpedoes and then left the area. I have not heard of a report by Reuters or the Press Association about who fired first, but I can tell the House that in this case, due to the serious threat that the group of Argentine naval vessels posed to our task force, our submarine was ordered to fire some torpedoes at the cruiser.

Mr. Healey: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman's answer about the distance between the task force and the Argentine forces is inadequate. First, the action took place nearly two days ago. No one could assume that our task force would still be in the position in which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, it was identified by the Argentine destroyers at that time.
Secondly, those of us who have had the right hon. Gentleman's and my experience in these matters know of the difficulties of communication with submarines. But I did not ask where the submarine was. I asked where the task force was. The task force is a surface force in continuous communication with the Ministry of Defence in London, as we know from the hourly press reports from correspondents aboard some of the ships.

Mr. Nott: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman asked where our task force was, but that is not information that I think it would be prudent to give to the House. As he will know, the task force is within the region of the Falkland Islands, around the area of the total exclusion zone, but I cannot be asked to give precise nautical miles in a case of this kind.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow 20 minutes on this statement and then to move on to a personal statement.

Mr. David Steel: I join in the congratulations extended to our forces on the success of the operation so far.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the military policy remains as described by the Prime Minister in the debate last Thursday as being measured and controlled? The right hon. Gentleman presumably accepts that if the scale of loss of life already suffered by the Argentines were repeated against us in retaliation it would quickly equal the total population of the Falkland Islands. Will he therefore tell us whether there is a general directive to the fleet commander that all action must be taken only if it is totally unavoidable?

Mr. Nott: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the skill of our men with the task force.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. The action of our fleet in the South Atlantic must at all times be measured and controlled. I wholly agree with him on that. I am sure that he will accept from me, however, that in the conditions in which our forces find themselves—repeated air attacks had been launched on them the previous day, we have reason to believe that there is a submarine or perhaps two operating in the area, and the Argentines themselves announced that they had sunk HMS "Exeter", brought down 11 of our aircraft and severely damaged HMS "Hermes", all of which is clear evidence that the orders of the Argentine fleet are to sink our ships—we must do nothing that endangers our task force, which went there and is there with, I believe, the consent of the majority of Members of the House.

Sir John Eden: Is it not absolutely clear that, despite all the efforts of British Ministers, there can be no negotiated settlement unless the Argentines agree to withdraw, and that if they do not repossession of the islands by military means is unavoidable? As it seems that the Argentines have so far rejected every opportunity to come to the negotiating table, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the British task


force does not have to hang around for too long in inhospitable waters, but that any necessary military action to repossess our territory is taken with expedition and speed?

Mr. Nott: My right hon. Friend is correct. We require a negotiated settlement—a long-term peaceful solution to the problem—but that must come after withdrawal of the Argentine forces in accordance with resolution 502.
As my right hon. Friend says, the Argentines have so far rejected every opportunity to withdraw. I should not like to go into detail about the military options, such as repossession, that are open to us, but the best way of avoiding any further loss of life is for the Argentines not to challenge the total exclusion zone and not to pose a threat to our ships and men. The right way to ensure that there is no further loss of life is for the Argentines to withdraw their garrison from the Falkland Islands in accordance with resolution 502.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he fully appreciates that the massive support that we have from the United States and Europe is conditional upon avoiding huge losses of life, British or Argentine? Is he aware that there is now a real danger that we shall lose the support of our friends and allies?

Mr. Nott: I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the support that we have so far received is based to a large extent on the belief that we shall not use more force than is necessary to persuade the Argentines to withdraw from the Falkland Islands. We are attempting to use the minimum force to achieve our objectives. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, however, that nothing that we do or say to our forces must put them in peril. We have no choice but to take as our overriding duty the protection of our own ships and men.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people in this country and certainly in the House will welcome his last statement? Is he aware that, above all, given the power, range and accuracy of the weaponry possessed by both the Argentine navy and air force, the House and the country would consider it a dereliction of duty if we did not take such action as was necessary to stop any attack?

Mr. Nott: The cruiser, although elderly, with its two destroyer escorts, posed a very considerable threat to our task force. All were heavily armed and the Exocet missile carried by the destroyer escorts is a potent and dangerous weapon for use against our task force. With a submarine in that area, we could not allow the Argentine group to go on threatening our ships and men, as it would have done if we had simply ignored it.

Dr. John Gilbert: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Seacat missile on the "General Belgrano" would be of no significance in surface-to-surface engagements and that the dangerous armament—the Sea Dart or the Exocet—was with the destroyer escort? How does he propose to refute the suggestion that the attack was not aimed at using the minimum force to achieve the maximum military advantage, but that, on the contrary, it was aimed at producing the maximum casualties and psychological shock to the Argentines?

Mr. Nott: Obviously, I reject that charge utterly. On the specific points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, Seacat is not a surface-to-surface missile, and I never suggested that it was, but the Belgrano had 15 6in guns, which were a very considerable threat and have t very considerable range. What he said about the destroyers is, of course, correct as well.

Mr. Keith Speed: It is correct that the guns are radar-controlled, that the cruiser carried substantial armour and that these ships would have been a significant threat to our task force had they been allowed to get through. Can my right hon. Friend tell us anything about the reports that the cruiser was afloat for some considerable time before it sank?

Mr. Nott: I cannot confirm the latter point. I understand that a report was issued by the Argentines initially that the cruiser was only damaged—that her propellor-shaft was damaged. If the evidence that we have had from Argentine sources is to be believed, the cruiser was crippled in the initial torpedo attack and did not sink immediately. But we cannot confirm that evidence. It comes from the Argentines.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The Secretary of State admits that the Exocet missiles on the destroyers represent a potent threat to the task force. Would not he and the Prime Minister have better met their stated objective of preserving the task force with minimum force if the submarine, if it had to be deployed, had confined its attention to the destroyers?

Mr. Nott: Had one of the destroyers been torpedoed instead of the cruiser and men had lost their lives, the House would have been just as deeply concerned about the loss of human life from the destroyer as about the loss of human life from the cruiser.

Mr. John Roper: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we share his view that ensuring the safety of our forces is the highest priority? Is he satisfied that the supply vessels and the troop carriers travelling between this country and the South Atlantic have adequate protection from Argentine surprise attacks?

Mr. Nott: I am very conscious of the need to provide adequate protection for the supply vessels and for troop reinforcements. It is, of course, a very important matter.

Mr. Julian Critchley: What will be the effect of the Falkland Islands affair on the future allocation of resources to defence?

Mr. Nott: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that this is quite the moment to discuss that issue.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State correct the statement by the Prime Minister and confirm that not all Members of the House supported the sending of the task force? Will he accept that it is reasonable for us all to believe that it has always been the intention of the Government to achieve a solution to this problem by military means, unless he can tell us, apart from putting forward one unacceptable precondition and a willingness to listen to other people's ideas, what specific proposals for a peaceful solution have been put forward on the initiative of the Government?

Mr. Nott: The Foreign Secretary devoted a large part of his statement to that latter matter. The House generally,


I believe, supported the sending of the task force, although I am not for one moment claiming that every Member of the House did so. In the early stages of this affair, after the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands, we had great difficulty in protecting HMS "Endurance" from the Argentines. It was only skill and to some extent good luck that prevented our losing a considerable number of the Royal Marines on HMS "Endurance" at the outset of this affair. When the Argentines first attacked Port Stanley they heavily mortared the marine barracks, believing that the Royal Marines were there. To suggest that we fired the first shot or that we are responsible for the hostilities—I know that the hon. Gentleman did not suggest this, but it is being suggested in some quarters—is a travesty of the truth.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend begin to agree with the remarks attributed to Air Chief Marshal "Bomber" Harris yesterday, or the day before, when he suggested that too much publicity was given to the nitty-gritty of strategic and tactical decisions taken by the people on the high seas facing difficulties in protecting our interests and our troops? If he does agree, what steps does he think can be taken to rebut some of the nonsensical remarks by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Nott: It would be of assistance to us if retired Service officers and others would not speculate so widely on all the military options that are open to us. It would also, naturally, be of help to us if the BBC and other media could have rather fewer programmes of this kind, because we are talking about lives, and the lives of our own Service men, and at the moment some of these programmes go rather too far.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Minister confirm what the Prime Minister said earlier this afternoon, namely, that the decision to launch the torpedoes was a political decision—in other words, it was made by either the Prime Minister or the right hon. Gentleman, or both of them together? Or was it made by the admiral on the spot? It is extremely important that the country should know who is making decisions to kill in the South Atlantic.

Mr. Nott: Throughout this affair we have kept close control of the rules of engagement that go to the task force, and that must be obvious. The overall political control remains with the Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was, of course, confirming that. That must be the case. We did not fire the first shot, and the day before the "General Belgrano" was sunk there was launched upon our ships a substantial and dangerous air attack. It was only because of the superior skill and the better aircraft that we have available that our ships were not sunk the day before. I hope that the country understands that very clearly. We cannot allow Argentine naval or air assets to be left free to attack and sink our ships.

Mr. Michael Latham: Did my right hon. Friend note last weekend the difference between the military dictatorship of Argentina telling lies to its people about alleged losses of British personnel and ships and their subsequent jamming of the BBC, and his duty to

respond fully and truthfully in the House, as he has been doing this afternoon, in our democracy? Will he assure the world and the country that any figures given by his Ministry of losses will be absolutely true?

Mr. Nott: We will do our utmost, given the distances and the problem of immediate communications, to publish nothing but facts. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A great deal of propaganda and misinformation have been put out by Buenos Aires. There was no great sense of outrage when they announced that they had sunk HMS "Exeter", shot down 11 of our aircraft and severely damaged the "Hermes". Indeed, this was put out from Buenos Aires with great pleasure before we were able to deny it. There does not seem to be any predisposition on their part to hide the fact that they have been attempting to sink our ships and shoot down our aircraft.

Mr. Healey: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman once more if he can give us more details about the distance between the opposing forces, because this is critical in establishing the necessity to attack the cruiser in self-defence? The right hon. Gentleman told the House a moment ago that the Argentine ships were closing on elements of our task force, so presumably they knew where it was, and, since two of them survived, presumably the Argentine Government knows. The Soviet Government certainly knows, because it has three spy satellites over the area. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the task force was 40 hours ago?

Mr. Nott: I have noted that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Soviets know where our task force is. I rather doubt that that is the case. The "General Belgrano" was sunk about 30 miles south of the exclusion zone. I repeat that I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman where our task force was then or where it is now. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's natural wish to know how close the forces were, given the delay in communications that can arise between London and a submarine, the fact that I have told him and the House that this group was only hours of steaming time away surely gives him sufficient information to appreciate that these ships were a threat to our fleet.

Mr. Alex Pollock: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the start of the crisis the Government were criticised severely in several parts of the House for failing to anticipate the invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina? Does he agree that it is ironic that some of those same elements should now be criticising the Government for meeting the threat on the high seas and thereby protecting the lives of our Service men?

Mr. Nott: I have noted my hon. Friend's point, and I rather agree with it.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that no one in the House in his senses wants to see the conflict escalate? Both sides have proved in crude terms that they can inflict substantial damage upon the other. I do not ask him to give the exact position that was under threat by the "General Belgrano" and the two destroyers, but will he say whether our forces were within or outside the 200-mile exclusion zone?

Mr. Nott: It would be so easy for me to give the hon. Gentleman the answer, but I am sure that it would be wrong for me to do so.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our attacks on the Falkland Islands airports will have caused heavy casualties among Argentine troops? It is these wounded Argentines and the other Argentines who need evacuation from the Falkland Islands, not the Falkland Islanders. Does he therefore agree that it might be worth while offering to the United Nations for its use the hospital ship "Uganda" to carry out this evacuation of wounded Argentines and any other Argentines who wish to leave? This may well provide the breakthrough in the negotiating position, where there is currently a stalemate. It would be an act of magnanimity and it might enable the Argentine people at home to see the real picture of what is happening on the Falkland Islands, rather than the counterfeit picture.

Mr. Nott: I assure my hon. Friend that if, for example, the Red Cross wants safe passage to collect Argentine wounded, we shall make sure that it has it. If we can recover wounded ourselves, we shall do so. We shall provide them with hospital and medical facilities in our ships. That would be part of the Royal Navy's normal conduct of affairs. However, there is sometimes a problem. For instance, in the case of the "General Belgrano", if we had attempted rescue ourselves we would have been within easy range of Argentine land-air attack. If we are to perform this humane function, we must do so without hazarding our own forces.

Personal Statement

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement.
I have already given notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that at the conclusion of today's business I wish to be appointed Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead—in other words, forthwith to resign my seat in the House. It is also my intention, however, as soon as the appointment has been effected, to relinquish it with a view to contesting a by-election in the constituency of Mitcham and Morden, which will result from my resignation. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), the Opposition Chief Whip, has agreed that he will move the writ for that by-election next Tuesday, 11 May so that the by-election can take place on 3 June. I am grateful to him for that.
The House will understand that a Member in my position has no control over the timing of a subsequent by-election. It may well wish in due course to consider whether that situation is satisfactory.
As most hon. Members will know, I announced en 10 December that I was leaving the Labour Party and joining the Social Democrats. I said then that it was my intention to resign from the House and to contest a by-election. This is not the occasion to discuss the reasons for my decision to leave the party to which I belonged for over 30 years. However, I should like briefly to place on record the reasons why I have felt it right to seek the endorsement of my constituents for my decision. I do not wish the action that I am taking to establish any precedent—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it is customary to hear a personal statement in silence.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: —for other Members who may find that they can no longer support the policies adopted by the party under whose label they were elected. That would be to raise the party above the individual conscience and judgment of a Member of Parliament, whereas I think that it is the judgment of each individual Member of Parliament on what is in the public interest that should always be paramount.
There are many precedents of Members who have crossed the Floor of the House without resigning. Perhaps the late Sir Winston Churchill is the most famous example. Whether or not one accepts that such a fundamental change as crossing the Floor of the House involves an obligation to seek re-election, I believe that there is none upon hon. Members who consider that their views have not changed fundamentally but who personally feel that their parties have adopted a radically different position since the last general election. That is the position of my colleagues in the SDP.
My position is different, because I have given specific assurances to the Mitcham and Morden constituency Labour Party, which I have repeated at public meetings, that if ever I were to leave the Labour Party I should resign my seat and contest a by-election. That pledge was first given when my loyalty to the Labour Party was questioned following my criticism in the House of mass picketing at Grunwick in 1977. It has been repeated at public meetings. I do not think it necessary to adduce reasons for keeping one's promises, other than that one has made them.
I hope that I shall return to the House very soon, but whatever the outcome of my decision it has been a great honour to have served in the House.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we now establishing a new tradition whereby we read our election addresses in the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) altered his statement to meet my requirements. As the hon. Gentleman is making his last speech before he leaves the House—it is not for me to anticipate the future—and as he has been here for 12 years, I thought it right to allow him to make a statement.

LEGAL AID BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Legal Aid Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Budgen.]

Abolition of the Commission for Racial Equality

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the Commission for Racial Equality.
This is a time to unite the British people and not to divide them. Britons of all shapes and sizes and colours and origins must stick together. We can do without an institution the sole purpose of which is to emphasise our differences. I believe that the Commission for Racial Equality should be abolished because it does more harm than good to the cause of harmonious race relations. It sets Britons against Britons.

Mr. David Winnick: That is not true.

Mr. Stanbrook: It sets blacks against whites. In the end, the tragedy is that the black citizen suffers most from its activities.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stanbrook: I shall not give way.
The black citizen is prevented by the commission and its local counterpart the community relations councils, from identifying himself as being as British as the rest of US.

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. There can be no intervention in a speech introducing a Ten-Minute Bill.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect, there have been interventions in speeches on Ten-Minute Bills. My speeches have been the subject of such interventions. It has happened in the past.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is contrary to the practice of the House. I do not know of the episode that the hon. Gentleman quoted, but there can be no interventions today.

Mr. Stanbrook: The Commission for Racial Equality does more harm than good to the cause of harmonious race relations. Those who suffer most are black citizens because they are deprived of the identification——

Mr. Winnick: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Stanbrook: —that most of them seek—to be British citizens like ourselves.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs recently studied the Commission for Racial Equality and published a report that was fiercely critical of its effectiveness and credibility, and scathing about its management. The commission is our worst quango. It spends almost £8 million of taxpayers' money annually. It campaigns against Government policies. It issues prohibitions in cases such as the advertisement for a Scottish cook and the professional man who wanted a Christian colleague. Those prohibitions are not merely fatuous but dangerous because they give the impression to the public that that which is lawful is, in fact, unlawful. It was always Parliament's intention that such matters should be lawful.
The commission actively promotes racial discord—

Mr. Winnick: Rubbish.

Mr. Stanbrook: I know of a London employer who requested the local jobcentre to find a clerical assistant for his staff.

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Stanbrook: He was sent 32 applications, 31 of which were coloured men. Not one of them was suitable. But soon afterwards the Commission for Racial Equality sent him 31 forms, in respect of each of the coloured men seeking an appointment, demanding full reasons why each one of them had not been appointed.
The same spirit pervades all the commission's work. It has press conferences restricted to black journalists. Its house magazine New Equals represents the commission as the champion of the blacks against the guilty whites.

Mr. Winnick: Rubbish. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is rubbish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stanbrook: We all need good race relations, but this is not the way to achieve them. We should rely on the normal interplay of social forces within the law of our free democratic society to ease racial friction.
The average white Briton is amazingly tolerant and helpful to a coloured neighbour who runs into difficulties. It is a matter of great regret—indeed, it is disgraceful—that so many people, and the commission, should give the impression that the ordinary white Briton is racially prejudiced.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Roy Jenkins' wife got a job.

Mr. Stanbrook: May I draw the attention of the House to the words of Mr. David White, a West Indian, who recently secured exemplary damages from the High Court for an assault made on him by policemen? In the Daily Mail on 26 April, Mr. White said:
It all started to go wrong when they made this race relations law. Everybody knows that if you tell someone they can't do something, soon as you turn round, they want to do it.
I don't think there was a real racial prejudice before then, not like you have today. I came to England in 1956—that was when people used to advertise rooms to let and say: 'Sorry, no coloureds.' They were honest about it and they did say sorry. And why not? —you can't make everyone like black people. I can understand that some old lady with a room to let might be frightened by the sight of a black face by the front door.
It is just the way things were then. Racial prejudice was not something people thought was wicked. It was just a fact of life and all of us-blacks and whites together—accepted it.
There were still plenty of people who took us for what we were—ordinary citizens who just happened to be a different colour…I'm just an ordinary man who was wronged and I got my justice. I knew I would. I didn't go to the community relations people or anyone. I didn't want people to demonstrate outside the court. I just went to my solicitor and then didn't tell another soul.
Those words reveal a depth of wisdom and understanding about race relations which the Commission for Racial Equality cannot even begin to comprehend. The commission is nothing but a mischief maker and trouble rouser in race relations. Whatever it might have done for the cause of good race relations, it has ceased to do it now. The commission should be abolished. I commend my Bill to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: rose——

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Marshall: This is the second time in 12 months that I have been compelled to listen to the obnoxious nonsense that, from time to time, is spouted by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on these matters. His racist comments today make his comments during the British Nationality Bill last year pale into insignificance. If the hon. Gentleman is unwise enough to seek leave to introduce the Bill, I sincerely hope that the House will show its contempt for the hon. Gentleman's speech and the contempt in which it holds his Bill to abolish the Commission for Racial Equality.
If the House allows the hon. Gentleman to introduce the Bill, the effect on the morale of the black community will be devastating. Further, it will create the impression that the Government and Parliament—the white establishment—do not care a tinker's cuss about eliminating racial discrimination or reducing racial disadvantage.
Acceptance of the Bill would also reinforce the sense of alienation in certain parts of the black community We have already seen the consequences of that in Bristol in 1980 and in Toxteth, Southwark and other places in 1981. We are likely to see a recurrence of such incidents unless we eliminate the causes. Abolishing the CRE would do nothing to rid us of the causes. It would only exacerbate matters. For that, if for no other reason, the hon. Gentleman's proposal should be condemned.
All decent hon. Members agree that there is racial discrimination in employment and housing. The black community is condemned to live in decaying inner city areas. After the evidence presented to the Home Secretary, we condemn the 7,000 racially motivated attacks on our fellow citizens. We share the right hon. Gentleman's shock and distress at the statistics.
The Government have committed themselves to a just and united multiracial society as the Minister of State, Home Office said. The Government only last week in their White Paper gave the CRE in a large measure a vote of confidence. But the Government's good intentions have been undermined by their economic policy, which will increase racial disadvantage. Their deflationary policy, which has led to 3 million unemployed, has had a more adverse effect on the black community than on the white community. The cutback in expenditure on housing has condemned more and more black people to live for longer periods in the decaying parts of our inner cities. If the Government increased public expenditure for housing more houses could be built and those people could he rehoused. Our decaying Victorian schools are not being replaced because of the cuts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the abolition of the commission.

Mr. Marshall: Public expenditure reductions have also affected the commission's effectiveness and efficiency. Only two years ago the Government decided to reduce its budget. I hope that the next Labour Government will strengthen the commission and change the law to make its work more effective. We should increase its budget so that more formal investigations can be carried out and more educational and promotional work be done to change the hearts and minds of many of our citizens. The law should be changed so that the onus is on the employer to show that there is no discrimination. Many


individuals trying to prove charges are intimidated by the apparatus of the law and the pressure that employers can bring to bear.
I hope that the House refuses the hon. Gentleman's permission to introduce this obnoxious and evil Bill.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the vote, if it comes, will be on whether my hon. Friend has leave to bring in his Bill and that hon. Members who vote against it may have been more persuaded by the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) would have made and are not necessarily voting in support of the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that the Division will take place on whether the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has leave to bring in his Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House Divided: Ayes 51, Noes 283.

Division No. 135]
[5.10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Knight, MrsJill


Bevan, David Gilroy
Langford-Holt, SirJohn


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Blackburn, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Brinton, Tim
Marland, Paul


Brotherton, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Mawby, Ray


Clark, SirW. (CroydonS)
Molyneaux, James


Cockeram, Eric
Montgomery, Fergus


Colvin, Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Costain, SirAlbert
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cranborne, Viscount
Ridsdale, SirJulian


Dover, Denshore
Rost, Peter


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Dunlop, John
Speller, Tony


Farr, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, SirAnthony
Stokes, John


Fox, Marcus
Townend,John(Bridlington)


Fry, Peter
Wall,SirPatrick


Glyn, DrAlan
Ward, John


Goodhew, SirVictor
Wells,John (Maidstone)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)
Wickenden,Keith


Hastings.Stephen
Williams,D.(Montgomery)


Hawkins,Paul



Hawksley,Warren
Tellers for the Ayes:


Holland.Philip(Carlton)
Mr. Tony Marlow and 


Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.


Jessel, Toby





NOES


Abse, Leo
Berry, Hon Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Best, Keith


Allaun,Frank
Bidwell,Sydney


Alton,David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ancram,Michael
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boothroyd,MissBetty


Arnold, Tom
Boscawen,HonRobert


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bottomley, RtHonA.(M'b'ro)


Ashton,Joe
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Atkins, Rt HonH.(S'thorne)
Bradley, Tom


Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Brocklebank-Fowler,C.


Bagier, GordonA.T.
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker,Kenneth(St.M'bone,)
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Barnett.G uy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Brown, Ron(E'burgh,Leith)


Beith, A. J.
Buchan,Norman





Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Antony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Hayhoe, Barney


Canavan,Dennis
Haynes, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Carmichael,Neil
Heffer, Eric S.


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hicks, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stolS)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cohen,Stanley
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Coleman, Donald
Holland,S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
HomeRobertson,John


Conlan, Bernard
Homewood,William


Cook, Robin F.
Hooley, Frank


Cope, John
Hoyle, Douglas


Cormack, Patrick
Huckfield, Les


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Cox.T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Craigen, J.M,(G'gow, M'hill)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Crowther,Stan
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cryer,Bob
John,Brynmor


Cunliffe,Lawrence
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Davis, Terry (B'ham,Stechf'd)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Deakins,Eric
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk,Robert


Dixon, Donald
Kinnock,Neil


Dobson,Frank
Lamborn,Harry


Dormand,Jack
Lamond,James


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Dubs, Alfred
Latham, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, John


Dunnett, Jack
Leighton, Ronald


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
LeMarchant, Spencer


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, MissJoan


Eastham, Ken
Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Lyell, Nicholas


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lyon, Alexander(York)


Emery, Sir Peter
McCartney, Hugh


English, Michael
McDonald, DrOonagh


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Macfarlane,Neil


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
MacGregor,John


Evans, John (Newton)
McKay,Allen(Penistone)


Faulds,Andrew
McKelvey,William


Field,Frank
MacKenzie, RtHonGregor


Fisher, SirNigel
Maclennan, Robert


Flannery,Martin
McTaggart, Robert


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)
McWilliam,John


Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)
Major,John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marks,Kenneth


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Forrester, John
Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)


Foster, Derek
Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)


Foulkes, George
Martin, M (G 'gowS 'burn)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th,N'w'd)
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maxton,John


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Mayhew,Patrick


Garrett, John (NorwichS)
Meacher,Michael


George,Bruce
Mellish, RtHon Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian


Golding, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Goodlad,Alastair
Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)


Graham, Ted
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Greenway, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Grimond, RtHonJ.
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Morton,George


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Hardy, Peter
Needham,Richard


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Nelson,Anthony 

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Newton,Tony






O'Halloran,Michael
Stallard, A. W.


O'Neill,Martin
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Park,George
Stoddart, David


Parker,John
Stott,Roger


Patten,Christopher(Bath)
StradlingThomas.J.


Pavitt,Laurie
Straw, Jack


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Summerskill,HonDrShirley


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Datydd (Merioneth)


Race, Reg
Thompson,Donald


Radice,Giles
Tilley,John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tinn,James


Rees, Rt Hon M ('Leeds S)
Trippier,David


Renton, Tim
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Rhodes James, Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Richardson, Jo
Vaughan, DrGerard


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waddington, David


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright.E(DearneV)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wakeham, John


Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)
Waldegrave,HonWilliam


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Robertson,George
Waller, Gary


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Watkins,David


Rooker, J.W.
Wellbeloved,James


Roper,John
Wells, Bowen


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Welsh,Michael


Rossi, Hugh
Whitelaw,RtHonWilliam


Sainsbury,HonTimothy
Whitlock,William


Sandelson,Neville
Wilkinson,John


Sever, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Sheerman,Barry
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Shelton,William(Streatham)
Winnick,David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woodall.Alec


Short, Mrs Renée
Woolmer,Kenneth


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wrigglesworth,Ian


Silvester, Fred
Wright,Sheila


Sims, Roger
Young, David (Bolton E)


Skinner, Dennis
Young, SirGeorge(Action)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Speed, Keith
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and 


Spriggs, Leslie
 Mr. Stan Thorne.


Squire,Robin

Question accordingly negativated.

Orders of the Day — Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point: of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. New clause 5 does not appear in Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendment3. I hesitate to criticise the judgment of a Speaker for whom I have great respect, but can representations be made to him during the course of what might be a lengthy evening? Six hon. Members support new clause 5, whereas amendments supported by only one hon. Member have been called. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), the Opposition spokesman on this matter, expressed his support: for the new clause.
The bill gives the Secretary of State power to order major cutbacks in local authority education, but a subsidy of more than £2 million will continue for private schools in Scotland through the rate subsidy. The matter was not discussed in Committee and it would, therefore, seem appropriate for it to be discussed on Report.
Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the Clerk of the House, make further representations to Mr. Speaker to see whether his provisional selection of amendments can be altered to include new clause 5?

Mr. Ernie Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree that we do not wish to question Mr. Speaker's selection, but one of the new clauses that has been selected, in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and relating to dog control, took up a considerable amount of time in Committee, whereas new clause 5 was not discussed in Committee. I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) in asking that further representations be made to Mr. Speaker during the debate.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The new clause on dog control to which the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) refers was not called for debate in Committee.

Mr. John Maxton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this matter is the subject of a clause in another Bill that is now before the House and it seems odd——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The point of order to me was about new clause 5, not new clause 4. I think I must say to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that I understand that representations have already been made to Mr. Speaker to reconsider his selection to include new clause 5, but he came to the conclusion that he could not propose to alter the selection already made.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I accept what you have said, is it not possible to make further representations and to indicate that a number of hon. Members, including my hon.


Friends the Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey), Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), support those representations? If it were made clear to Mr. Speaker that a substantial body of opinion in the House would like to discuss new clause 5, he might. in the spirit of tolerance and amiability that I know he has towards Scotland and Scottish Members, make an exception on this occasion. Would it be possible to make such representations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put his case very reasonably. I shall gladly draw this matter to the attention of Mr. Speaker once again, but I do not know what his reaction will be.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There cannot be a further point of order. I have already said that I shall again draw the matter to the attention of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Home Robertson: On a fresh point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to waste time. However, when you hear from Mr. Speaker, will you be prepared to make a statement to the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we reach the new clause I shall, of course, let the House know of Mr. Speaker's decision.

New clause 1

LIMITATION ON PAYMENT WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED OF PERSON EXERCISING RIGHT TO PURCHASE UNDER TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) ACT 1980

.—(1) In section 1 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 (which relates to the rights of a public sector to purchase the house which he occupies) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) Subject to subsection (1) above and to section 2(8) and 6 of this Act no person exercising (or seeking to exercise) a right to purchase under the said subsection (1) shall be obliged, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, to make any payment to or lodge any deposit with the landlord which he would not have been obliged to make or as the case may be lodge had he not exercised (or sought to exercise) the right to purchase:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply as regards the expenses of any court proceedings.
or'.
(2) In section 4 of the said Act of 1980—

(a) in subsection (1) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section I( IA) of this Act": and
(b) in subsection (3) the words "incurred in connection with the sale of the dwelling-house" shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following:
New clause 6—Sale of council houses in rural areas.
New clause 9—Exception to right to buy.
Amendment No. 76, in page 31, line 26, leave out clause 47.
Government amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
Amendment No. 79, in clause 47, page 31, line 35, leave out 'or exercise any discretion'.
Amendment No. 80, in clause 47, page 31, line 37 leave out
'or, as the case may be, exercised'. 
Government amendments Nos. 81, 96, 113 and 116.

Mr. Stewart: At this stage in the debate I should like to speak to the Government amendments also. The need for new clause 1 and Government amendment No. 116 arises solely from the determination of a minority of Scottish local authorities—I stress that it is a minority—to find obstacles to put in the way of tenants who wish to exercise, or actively consider exercising, their right to buy their homes. In a nutshell, the combined effect of the new clause and Government amendment No. 116 is to obviate two methods of preventing or discouraging tenants from applying to exercise their right to buy.
First, it will prevent contracting-out of the right to buy. Section 1(1) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act already prohibits the inclusion of contracting-out provisions in tenancy agreements to stop local authorities from refusing to allocate a house unless the tenant signs a lease that would debar him from exercising the right to buy when he had the three years' qualifying tenancy. Government amendment No. 116 simply extends this principle to stop authorities from threatening to do, or not do, something unless an existing tenant agrees to contract out of the right to buy.
We know of one authority that has given active consideration to refusing to modernise houses unless the tenant contracts out of the right to buy, and others may be doing so without the Government's being aware of it. There can be no justification for this. It is for the House to decide whether tenants of newly modernised houses should be penalised compared with other tenants, and the House decided when considering the legislation that there should be no such penalty.
Secondly, new clause 1 will prevent local authorities from charging tenants who decide to exercise their right to buy. Again, this practice is confined to a tiny minority of Scottish local authorities. It can take two forms—charging a tenant who wishes to submit an application form a deposit, which is not returned to him if he decides not to buy, and charging a tenant who puts in an application form, but eventually decides not to buy, a penalty charge.
The House will have noticed that both practices penalise the tenant who does not buy. One might have thought that the more doctrinaire Labour-controlled authorities would give such tenants a civic reception, but apparently they choose to punish them. It is not hard to see the reason for this. They hope to frighten their tenants in order to discourage them from exercising their rights under the Act.
The people whom they are most likely to succeed in frightening are those who would like to own their own homes but who are on the borderline between being able to afford to do so and not being able. In other words, they are precisely the people who will never stand a chance of being home owners except through our policy to help sitting tenants buy the houses in which they live—in many ways, the most important group of all.
It is not a crime to want to know whether one can afford to buy one's home or to know the conditions of sale, so


that one can judge whether one feels able to take on the responsibilities of home ownership. It is wrong that anyone should have to pay for such information. Tenants have a right to apply to buy their homes, and charging them to do so is like setting up a toll booth on a public right of way and charging people to walk where they are entitled to walk.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Minister must realise that that is exactly what the Government have required applicants for planning permission to do. Leaving that aside, is he saying that under the existing legislation, without the changes that he is now proposing, it is legal for district councils to take the actions that he has indicated? Is it not correct to say that if a local authority refuses to use the machinery under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act it will be possible for the applicant to take the case to the Scottish Lands Tribunal and to get justice that way?

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I am coming to the question of legality under the present legislation. The hon. Gentleman will know that it has always been the intention under the Act that charging should not be allowed. That was clearly the intention under the Act. There is nothing in the Act that permits charging. The hon. Gentleman asked whether local authorities can legally charge. One or two authorities have claimed, I think with dubious justification, that they can use their general powers in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
Let me refer in particular to what has happened in Stirling district, which is one of the authorities in question. The reporter at the inquiry into sales in Stirling found that the council had a duty to go ahead and issue offers to sell to those tenants who refused to pay a deposit. Unfortunately, even that clear indication of the incompatibility of its action with the requirements of the Act has not inhibited Stirling from continuing to ask for a deposit without telling tenants that they have exactly the same rights whether they pay it or not. Naturally, most people pay when their local authority tells them there is a charge, because they are accustomed to expecting reasonable standards of integrity from their elected representatives.

Mr. Maxton: I am slightly confused. At one point the Minister referred to charges, and at another to deposits. What is the difference between them, or is he talking about the same thing? To my mind they are two different things.

Mr. Stewart: I am talking about a deposit that may subsequently be lost, and in effect that is a charge. Therefore, I am not talking about two separate things.
This trust, which is fully deserved by the great majority of councils, is betrayed when an authority does things that are at worst outside its powers and at best a conscious confidence trick to beguile people into paying something for nothing. I have no hesitation in recommending this second change as wholeheartedly as the first.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister is doing what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues keep doing, and that is to make serious allegations against the conduct of local authorities in Scotland. How many local authorities is he talking about? Will he list them?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot list the authorities, because we may not know which authorities are considering taking such action, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am making no allegation about the overwhelming majority of Scottish local authorities. We are talking about a tiny minority.

Mr. Home Robertson: Which ones?

Mr. Stewart: I have already named Stirling and the other one that we know of is East Lothian, which also has charges of this sort.

Mr. Home Robertson: I thank the Minister for giving way, as he named my constituency. I had a sneaking suspicion that he might mention East Lothian. Can he confirm what I know to be a fact, which is that no charge of the nature that he has described has ever been made by East Lothian district council?

Mr. Stewart: East Lothian has a deposit scheme, as I understand it.

Mr. Home Robertson: It has not enforced it.

Mr. Stewart: It does not have a great record in pushing the sales through, so the question has not arisen.
The other set of Government amendments relates to clause 47. They involve extensive changes to the drafting of clause 47, but introduce a single, straightforward provision of substance. That provision is contained in amendment No. 78. Its purpose is to give the Lands Tribunal for Scotland jurisdiction in cases where landlords serve an offer to sell on a tenant who has applied to buy his council house, but the tenant alleges that the offer has not been compiled in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The power of the tribunal in such cases will simply be to decide whether the offer to sell is defective in terms of the requirements of the Act, and if it finds that it is to order the landlord to serve an offer to sell that is not defective. The tribunal will not take the case over and serve the replacement offer to sell.
It was always the intention of the Act that the tribunal should be able to look behind the basic fact that a landlord has given the tenant a piece of paper, which is called an offer to sell, to see whether it is an offer to sell, constituted as the Act requires. However, in a recent case, the tribunal concluded that the Act as drafted did not give it that power, hence the necessity for these amendments.
I illustrate the need for the amendment by describing the particular case that gave rise to it. The tenant complained that the landlord had used its own valuer to value the house without obtaining his consent as the Act requires, whereas he wished the district valuer to carry out the valuation. The tribunal considered the case and concluded that the tenant was right to complain. However, having identified this injustice to the tenant, the tribunal came to the conclusion that it had no power to do anything about it. In its judgment it drew attention to the unsatisfactoriness of this state of affairs, and it is difficult to see how anyone could disagree with that. The amendment, if it had been in force, would have allowed the tribunal to take the obvious course of ordering the landlord to have the house revalued and to serve on the tenant a new, properly constituted offer to sell.
Another common example of the sort of case that has come to the tribunal, for which it has been unable to provide a remedy, is where the landlord refuses to include


a garage in the sale, although it has been let in conjunction with the house. The Act is clear on this matter. Property that the tenant has habitually had use of in conjunction with the house is part of the house for the purposes of the sale. This applies to garden grounds and garden sheds just as much as to garages. Clearly, if there is a dispute about whether the Act requires something to be sold with the house, there should be an easy means of settling the dispute. The amendments will allow the tribunal to provide exactly that.
The remainder of amendment No. 78 is a repetition of the previous provisions of subsection (1) of clause 47, with no change of substance.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 133 are purely consequential.
Amendment No. 81 is, in a sense, a technical provision. The House would probably like some explanation of it. Subsection (2) of clause 47 makes the changes in subsection (1) retrospective by a general provision that might, in practice, cause some confusion in individual cases. The amendment therefore substitutes a much more detailed provision.
The effect of the amendment is that the tribunal's new powers will not apply to any case that it has dealt with at the date when the new provisions take effect. In other words—and this is important—no case can be reopened as a result of these powers. In the case that caused concern, to which I have referred, I am glad to be able to assure the House that the tenant and the landlord came to an agreement themselves.
Amendment No. 96 is purely consequential on amendment No. 81.
These improvements and clarifications of the present provisions will be of considerable benefit. They clarify and confirm Parliament's intentions and represent our continuing determination to ensure that those of Scotland's tenants who wish to do so can exercise their right to buy and that no impediments should be put in their way.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The scope of this package of proposals is wide-ranging and generous. Some have come from the Government and some from the Opposition. There is also a continuing and extremely spirited debate in Scotland about the worth of part 1 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, and whether the Government are doing irreparable damage to the fabric of public sector housing in Scotland. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) said at the conclusion of his remarks that the Government were proposing improvements and clarification. The hon. Gentleman has clarified one or two points. Whether he has improved the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act is much more of an open question. I hope that I shall suggest that in many ways the opposite has happened as a result of his efforts.
The Government have been tinkering—stopping little loopholes and buttressing restrictions here and there. They have done nothing to improve the general position that has resulted from the damaging effects of the tenants' rights Act as we are now experiencing it in Scotland.
In the new clauses and the amendments that stand in the name of the Opposition, we are proposing important reforms. There is no suggestion that we are looking in the Bill for a fundamental assault on the tenants' rights Act.

Although that is something that we should like to do, it would be out of place. A general local government and planning provision of this nature is not the measure to do that.
However, we can and hope to mitigate some of the more unfortunate consequences and to ensure that when the Bill reaches the statute book the result will be that the tenants' rights Act will be a slightly more palatable measure and will allow Scotland's local authorities a little more freedom and discretion to manage their housing stocks.
I do not wish to labour the point, but I wish to make it clear in the context of the debate that the many fears expressed over the past few years by local authorities are being amply justified in practice. The machinery in the Tenants' Rights Act has been divisive. It has heightened frustrations and tensions in housing. Anyone who represents an urban seat in Central Scotland, as I and many of my hon. Friends do, will know that there is a great deal of justified bitterness about the way in which the housing stock is being constantly raided. Those who are on housing waiting lists or in accommodation that is unsatisfactory in the simple physical sense, or in terms of amenity and convenience, and who are seeing the houses that they have waited so long for removed from the housing pool, have every right to complain. We have echoed their complaints persistently in debates for a long time.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East said that many sins were being committed by housing authorities in Scotland. In particular, he mentioned at one point that, for example, active consideration has been given by certain people to taking out of modernisation programmes, houses that were thought to be the subject of inquiries as to purchase.
I should not advocate such a policy, but the sale of council houses distorts the judgment of local authorities in matters of this kind. At the end of the day, as they examine the management of their housing stock and the deployment of the ever-decreasing resources that the Government allow them, there is an understandable reluctance to spend money on housing that they know may be removed from the housing stock in the immediate future. I am not suggesting that that distortion is something that we could approve of or support. However, the Minister should face facts and accept that the housing stock is being affected and that the right of local authorities to manage their housing has been badly affected by the tenants' rights legislation.
The situation will get worse. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who has been removed from our midst—I shall not say most cruelly—to other spheres of interest, constantly said that the best housing stock goes. Anyone who knows anything about housing in Scotland knows that the best stock, the highest amenity areas, the semi-detached houses, and the areas that are considered particularly desirable are where the sales are taking place. For Ministers to pretend otherwise shows either insensitive ignorance—perhaps that is perfectly believable of Conservative Members in Scotland—or, as I suspect, blatant brass neck. They must know from the advice given to them by their statisticians that the picture is very different from the one that they present.
I come now to the group of amendments. New clause 1 stands in the name of the Minister. Its purpose is to prevent the charging of a deposit by a local authority at the


start of the process that may lead to the sale of a council house. At one point, the Minister said that he could put the arguments in a nutshell. In my younger days there was a cliche in which people would have said that a nutshell was the best place for them.
There is no doubt that the change is a comparatively minor one, and it does not justify the indignation that the Minister expressed. He named, in particular, the East Lothian authority, as well as Stirling. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made it clear that his information in that respect is incorrect. I do not defend the practice of taking deposits, although section 2(8) allows a £100 deposit to buy a fixed price contract for two years. In these days of inflation, that is a remarkable bargain, and one which I believe is difficult to defend on any rational basis. However, the deposit is not something that we would encourage.
Before the Minister waxes too indignant, he should consider many of the practices in the private sector in this respect. I agree with my hon. Friends that there was some confusion in what the Minister said about whether we were talking about a charge for the process which sets in train the sale, or whether it was a deposit against the price. From my experience of the private sector, there are many deposit sales in which large payments change hands as a percentage of the total price, and where the conveyancing is not completed until the total price has been paid, often with exorbitant interest charges over many years. So I am not clear whether the Minister's indignation should be confined to what I gather is an atypical practice in the public sector. There are many more important issues that we should be considering, and I suspect that the one that the Minister is talking about, if it is a deposit against the price, is comparatively unimportant.
I come to the new clauses standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends. The first, on which we shall certainly wish to divide the House, is new clause 6, referring to the sale of council houses in rural areas. It is particularly important because, although we know that there have been a large number of applications in urban areas—incidentally, nothing like as many as Ministers claim—it is clear that it is a much larger problem for rural local authorities. For example, in September 1981, there were applications covering about 2·8 per cent. —applications, of course, are very different from sales—of council housing stock. The figures in rural areas show that the percentage of the stock that is threatened by forced sale is very much larger. In Skye and Lochalsh it was 12·8 per cent., in Orkney it was 12·1 per cent., in the Western Isles it was 9·9 per cent., and in Badenoch it was 9·4 per cent. When one considers that the percentage of the housing stock in the public sector in communities like that is much smaller than in urban or industrial Scotland, one realises how serious has been the raid on available public sector housing.
5.45 pm
I am indebted to Shelter, which has done a survey on the matter, for some interesting information about the reactions of local authorities to this threat. The danger is that when the housing has been bought by the sitting tenant, and the new owner has tholed his assize in terms of the period during which the discount has to be paid back on sale, there is then an extremely saleable article which

may well change hands. not to provide housing accommodation for residents in that area, but to provide a holiday home for people coming into the area.
I quote a letter that was sent to Shelter by the Skye and Lochalsh district council. It said that it
has the smallest housing stock of any housing authority in Scotland, and any loss in the resources available is a matter of serious concern…In Plockton, sales have been concentrated in a single high-amenity scheme in a village which is already experiencing problems with a high proportion of holiday homes".
I do not know Plockton very well, but I know that it is one of the most beautiful areas of Scotland. If sales have been concentrated in a high-amenity scheme in Plockton, I imagine that they represent valuable assets on resale to burghers from Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Birmingham or elsewhere, who want to go there during holiday time. It is interesting that in the list of authorities that I mentioned earlier, the average selling price of a council house in Skye and Lochalsh is £7,585. If one bought a high-amenity house in that area for that price, clearly one is on a substantial killing if, in three or four years' time, one is prepared to alienate it from local use and sell it to a visitor.
I do not want to labour the point endlessly, but I may say that the same thing could be said of a number of other rural authorities, not only in the Highlands but in the Borders. Again, in the Shelter correspondence, I notice that Annandale and Esdale district council says:
In some areas, the sale of one or two houses in some of our small stocks can represent a 50 per cent. reduction in the stock. If these houses are to be replaced, the unit costs will be very high, if not prohibitive.
When one compares the average selling price of £7,500 that I mentioned—most of them are being sold at that price; the highest, I think, is in Badenoch, where it is just over £9,000—under the tenants' rights legislation, with the unit costs of building a new dwelling house in one of these outlying rural areas, one realises what an expensive loss to the housing stock the sale of one such house is. I am informed, for example, that in the Western Isles—the upper end, perhaps—the unit cost can be as high as £32,000. So there is a genuine problem in rural areas where housing is controlled by rural district councils. Of course we make a general attack on the whole principle of the Bill, but there is a specific problem in this connection which deserves our attention, and new clause 6 is an attempt to meet that problem.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) recollect that in the last Labour Government's lifetime it was the practice of the then Secretary of State to permit local authorities, in such areas as the hon. Gentleman has been describing, to sell houses freely if they so chose? They exercised that right extensively.

Mr. Dewar: Yes, I am aware of that. However, I do not think that it is true to say that that was done extensively. It may be that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has a little tunnel vision if he thinks that Caithness is Scotland. In fact, Scotland is something he flies over to get to Caithness. I am aware that the Secretary of State under the last Government made a provision for Caithness to sell a significant number oF houses. However, Caithness's wishes were atypical. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take the point that there is all the difference in the world between a local authority that wants to sell and a local authority that has been forced


to sell against the best interests of the whole community. That is the distinction that we must hold onto firmly. I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not defending the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 and standing up for the proposition that people should be able to buy in rural communities in the circumstances that I have outlined.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I was seeking to draw attention to the fact that the last Labour Government were prepared to accept the principle of local option in this matter. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is developing a new argument that would deprive local authorities of the option that has been exercised not just in Caithness, as he knows quite well, but in many rural authorities.

Mr. Dewar: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am certainly not trying in any way to deprive any local authority of a power. I am trying to protect authorities against the compulsory selling that takes place under the 1980 legislation. I would have thought—without being sarcastic, because I recognise that the Social Democrats, inevitably in their present state of flux, are making their policies as they go along—that we would have had their support at least on the essential condemnation of the tenants' rights act.
Let me turn to the purpose of new clause 6 because that may counter the confusion in the hon. Gentleman's mind. It is attempting to stiffen up the exception in section 4(6) of the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act for rural housing. There is the possibility there of a re-purchase of a house in a rural area, but it is a possibility that is so hedged around with equivocal conditions as to be almost worthless. Section 4(7) of the Act provides that:
An order under subsection (6) above may be made where—

(a) within the said rural area more than one-third of the number of dwelling-houses of which the council concerned is the landlord…have been sold; and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that an unreasonable proportion of the houses sold have been resold and are not being used as the only or principal home of the owner.


Any condition can last only for a maximum period of 10 years. Although there may be the possibility of a pre-emption clause in favour of the district council, the Secretary of State's permission is so heavily qualified as, we would submit, to be almost useless.
New clause 6 attempts to provide—I do not see any objection to it in the argument of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland—that
there will be no further disposal of the dwelling-house unless

(a) the tenant…has offered to reconvey the dwelling-house to the landlord for a price to be determined by the district valuer as being the value of the dwelling-house at the time the offer is made; and
(b) the landlord has refused the offer or has failed to accept it within one month".


We are asking for the unqualified right to insist that if the house is being sold again, an offer at a fair market price should be made to the local authority first before it is sold, possibly into the private sector, and alienated from its proper use as a permanent home for people who live in that rural area.
I hope that I have made that clear. This is a highly defensible new clause. It is not only highly defensible on its own merits but it is buttressed by experience south of the border. No doubt the right hon. Member for Glasgow,

Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) with his limited experience, with many others, will remember that in section 19 of the Housing Act 1980 there is a much less complicated provision for a right of pre-emption than is allowed in the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. That provides that if a house is in a rural area
the conveyance or grant may contain a covenant limiting the freedom of the tenant and his successors in title to dispose of the dwelling-house in the manner specified below.
That simply states that if it is in a specified rural area, in the original sale we can put in a covenant which stipulates that on any resale there must be an offer to the local authority that is making the original disposal.
New clause 6 attempts to provide Scotland with a similar protection to that which has been granted in the Housing Acts in England and to guard against a real danger, which, as I understand it, has been recognised by local authorities throughout the length and breadth of rural Scotland. I recognise that there are rural Labour authorities—East Lothian is one—which are expressing serious concern, doubt and anxiety, but a large number of such authorities are Conservative controlled. That gives them no special virtue in my eyes, but perhaps it will guard against the suggestion that I am putting forward a partisan, narrow or bigoted case, and that in some way I have been bent in my judgment by my general antipathy to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act. I do not believe that this safeguard can be seen as a wrecking amendment in any way. There is a strong case, even for Conservatives, for new clause 6. We shall press it in due course to a Division.
Having spoken at some length on that, may I hurry on to one or two of the other provisions before the House. We believe that new clause 9 also has real and positive merit. Again, it will be our intention to divide the House on new clause 9. It attempts to deal with the vexed question of special housing for the old and disabled. The subject has been debated many times in the House and we return to it again and again because we feel particularly affronted about it. There is a long history of argument, and the House will remember—I do not intend to rehearse it in detail—that there was an announcement at a difficult stage of the English legislation that a concession was being made on housing for the disabled. The Secretary of State made a concession for Scotland at the same time. It was not made with good grace, but it was said to be an adequate concession which would put us on a par with what was being done by the Secretary of State for the Environment in England. As a result of that, we ultimately had the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1980. The hon. Member for Pentlands, now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs but then in charge of Scottish housing, made a great virtue of the fact that an important concession was being made. It may have been naive of me and some of my hon. Friends, but at the time we took that at its face value. We discovered later that the number of houses covered by the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1980 was very small. They fell into the category of amenity housing which appears in the Scottish housing statistics. Those dated 31 March 1981, the latest available to me, show that in the whole of Scotland there were 4,126 houses potentially covered by that amending legislation. If one looks at the way in which it has been done, by some strange chance 966 were in Kirkcaldy, 1,264 were in Grampian, of which 1,206 were in Aberdeen city. Therefore, if one takes Kirkcaldy and Aberdeen city out


of the list almost no houses were protected in the rest of Scotland. The point is most eloquently made by the Glasgow city figures. In many ways, Glasgow has the most acute housing problem in Scotland, if only because of its scale and size. The number of houses that appear under the category of amenity housing under the Glasgow city is 28. It would be too strong to say that this amending legislation was based upon fraudulent promises and has turned out to be a total conspiracy by the Government. They tried and appeared to give a concession, but at the end of the day the concession proved to be entirely worthless.
6 pm
It is very much on that basis that we promote new clause 9. It is an attempt to give what we regard as adequate protection for housing that has been specially adapted for the use of the disabled. As the House will see, the clause covers houses with features
which are substantially different from those of ordinary dwelling houses and which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons; …where the dwelling house is one of a group of dwelling houses which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupancy by persons of pensionable age and a social service or special facilities are provided in close proximity to the group of dwelling houses for the only or main purpose of assisting those persons.
The intention is to try to make a limited exception—again we are not trying to wreck—that covers the spirit of the concession as we understood it originally to have been offered. We are trying to ensure that in all our constituencies where there are small groups of houses in which there has been heavy public investment to make them acceptable and suitable for the disabled, or where they have been closely linked to central facilities or social services, that they should be retained in the housing stock and should not be sold without at least the permission and willing co-operation of the local authority. They must remain available for future tenants who may have the special difficulties that require such housing.
That is a simple objective. It is met by new clause 9, and if the Minister had the good grace to accept the spirit in which the original amendment was offered, I do not see how he can be so churlish as to say now that he objects to new clause 9.
Amendment No. 76 also stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. It is a simple amendment to leave out clause 47. The reasons for it are self-evident. Clause 47 has now been revamped as a result of Government amendments. Therefore, we are in a complicated position. I am attempting to excise clause 47 as it stands, but if my amendment is carried—it is the only other amendment on which we intend to vote—we may excise the Government amendments as well. However, if we succeed on amendment No. 76, it may be that the Government amendments which refer to clause 47 will not be called. No doubt when we reach that point we shall have your expert guidance on that conundrum, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
However, whether it be the original clause 47 or the souped-up version that is now being offered to us by the Minister, they are both objectionable and must go.
It is not right that, although the Lands Tribunal may in terms of Government strategy be a necessary mechanism to ensure that the issue of offer and final conveyancing of an exchange of titles is completed, its mechanical function should be embellished by giving to the Lands Tribunal discretions which, up to now, have been exercised only by the local authority with its directly elected mandate. It is

dangerous to say that, for example, the Lands Tribunal can make concessions about the amount of discount or the years of service that should be taken into account in calculating the discount. It is wrong, not in any narrow prejudiced sense, to wish to remove any power from the Lands Tribunal in terms of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. It is wrong both in theory and in practice.
The other amendments that stand in my name may well be redundant because they are specific amendments that relate to clause 47 as it is presently drawn. However, they make a point that is very much in tune with what I have already said about the exercise of discretion. If we consider the new formulation that the Minister is promoting, in paragraph 3(i) it would be a matter of excising the words "exercise any discretion" in line 15 and
give, exercise or as the case may be
in line 16. I hope that the Minister will consider whether it would be sensible to examine those possibilities if his new clause is carried.
Government amendment No. 81 is the only one to which I take no exception, because it limits and puts a clear boundary on the exercise of discretion and powers by the Lands Tribunal.
That has been a rapid Cook's tour through a complicated and complex series of amendments. do not intend to delay the House for much longer. All that I would say is that the two new clauses—that which deals with the right of pre-emption in rural areas and that which deals with the vexed question of housing specifically adapted for the disabled—would make a constructive contribution to the working of the tenants' rights Act and would improve it distinctly by striking out two self-evident anomalies.
I make no apology for saying, and I made it clear at the beginning, that these are minor improvements in the sense that they do not remove the evil of the 1980 Act as presently operated. I fear that the strains, stresses and difficulties to which I referred will become much greater as time goes on. For example, it is interesting to note that the new public expenditure projections up to 1984–85 suggest that in Scotland we shall see a reduction in housing expenditure of 14 per cent. in cash terms—a cut of £106 million—which will be catastrophic if we make allowances for inflation and try to estimate what that is likely to be in real terms. It comes on top of the most massive cuts during the past few years in housing support grants, which has seen the essential fabric of our housing stock deteriorate simply because local authorities do not have the resources to maintain decent and reliable services. A recent written answer to a question from me on Monday 19 April states that expenditure on housing in 1981–82 was £327 million, which will fall to £269 million in 1982–83.
We are facing a bleak and desperate period in terms of housing policy. Against that background, the pillaging of the housing stock and the selling of the best stock at knock-down prices, against the wishes of local authorities, will greatly compound the problems. I notice too that the sale of council houses will be a much larger part of the financing of the local authority housing effort under this Government than it should be. The net housing revenue allocation for 1982–83 for the city of Glasgow is £35 million, and to reach the total of £54 million the city must achieve a sale revenue of more than £18 million. It is extraordinary to note—the matter has already been raised and it may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member


for Berwick and East Lothian—that the net allocation on the HRA block grant for East Lothian is £1·8 million from the Government, but the authority is expected to add a considerably larger sum, £2·7 million, to that from the sale of council houses. That is a totally unrealistic, dishonest and fraudulent way in which to calculate housing finance on the capital side.
The Government's achievement is a combination of misery and frustration. We have seen new building grind to a halt. We have seen the rewiring and modernisation schemes not just decimated but almost obliterated by the cuts that have been enforced by a Government who seem to see only one thing moving upwards—rents in Scotland.
We can do nothing about the general policy in the Bill, but we can at least make our protest and try, through our new clauses and amendments, to do something to save at least specified, particularly sensitive areas of the housing stock from the worst excesses of the Government's prejudice.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: We have to accept that, unfortunate though it may be, the original Bill was well drafted and the Government have largely succeeded in their goal of forcing local authorities to sell their housing stocks.
However, it is noticeable that in the two or three local government Bills following the Tenant's Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 there have been a number of amendments as the Government have rushed to plug some of the gaps in the original proposals. That is a comment on the ingenuity of certain local authorities, but there are some practices of local authorities of which one cannot approve. It is one thing to oppose the general sale of council houses, on the ground that it would impair the general distribution of housing available to tenants, but it is another to prevent individual tenants from exercising the rights given to them.
I was worried when the Minister suggested that some local authorities—I am not sure whether East Lothian is among them—have apparently sought to give wrong advice to their tenants about their rights and obligations. That would be particularly reprehensible. The House has sought over the years to encourage the diffusion of information to individuals, whether through citizens advice bureaux, Members' surgeries or in other ways, to make sure that individuals know their rights. It is wrong for any local authority, exercising power and trusteeship, to seek to give wrong information to the public and particularly to its tenants to whom it has a contractual obligation.
It was not clear from the Under-Secretary's comments whether there has been extensive abuse. It seems that the Government's amendments are intended to prevent wrong information from being imparted. If only one person has been mistakenly advised to give a deposit or has been put off from exercising his or her individual rights on the basis of erroneous information, that gives us cause for action.
If tenants have considerable rights under existing legislation, I am not sure that the amendments will necessarily prevent wrong information from being given. A charge or deposit may be rendered illegal and perhaps not even one particularly bold district council will seek to perpetuate that practice. If other wrong information is supplied to tenants, they will undoubtedly be put off.
New clause 1 deals with deposits and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was right to point out that deposits are paid in instalment sales. In addition, it is accepted under the general law that, instead of entering a full contract, people can take out an option under which they pay a certain sum and go ahead with the purchase at a later date. The premium for the option is either deducted from the price or is regarded as an addition.
It is also possible that a premium will be returned to the purchaser. There are so many variations that it may be right for the Government to outlaw the practice in the sale of council houses. Such diverse variations could otherwise cause confusion.
6.15 pm
It is also wrong for a local authority to put the frighteners on tenants over modernisation by saying that any work that is due to be done will automatically lead to an increase in the purchase price. If a tenant has been in the house for some time and living in inadequate conditions because modernisation has been delayed, it may be right for that work to be done, but I do not like the idea of an authority picking on individuals. The Government are right to prevent such practices.
An Opposition new clause deals with the sale of council houses in rural areas. Although the hon. Member for Garscadden did not say so, the formula that he has adopted for what we used to call pre-emption follows substantially what was contained in many conveyancing documents. The suggestion is not new. It provides for the original purchaser to sell back to the original seller and, generally, that is not the sort of proposal which one would smile on, because it inhibits a person's rights, but we must bear in mind that the purchaser of a council house has bought the property at a heavily discounted rate and has been given a substantial bargain, which puts him in a different situation from any other purchaser.
Secondly, and probably more important, the purchaser of a council house has acquired a property which may be of value to the community and particularly to those, whether young couples or others, who are on the housing list and may not otherwise be able to get a house.
When we discussed such matters, almost ad nauseam, on the Bill providing for the sale of council houses, it was generally agreed that in country and coastal areas there would be pressure on the councils to sell their properties as holiday homes. The first sale will be to an existing tenant, but I think that most hon. Members will agree that second home purchasing is wrong, especially if it leads to the deprivation of the rights of indigenous inhabitants. There would be no problem if there were a surfeit of houses, but in many rural areas there is a shortage of properties and many people are driven away from those communities because they cannot get a local authority house.
It could be argued that once a local authority had disposed of a property to a tenant there would be no need for it to be involved again, because it could acquire land, by compulsory purchase if necessary, and build new houses to cater for the tenanted sector. However, it is clear from the public expenditure White Paper that the money to do that will not be available to local authorities and there will consequently be great pressure on them.
I support new clauses 6 and 9. I shall not go into detail on new clause 9. It was self-evident during the discussions


on the original Bill that there was pressure on housing for the disabled and the elderly. Houses for the disabled have been converted and made suitable for disabled persons. Those houses in turn should be made available to other disabled people. With the inhibitions on finance, local authorities, although many of them may sacrifice other areas of expenditure to take care of the interests of disabled people, may find themselves in difficulty and slow down some of the conversion work.
The argument applies equally to houses for people of pensionable age. In my constituency there are many elderly people who do not need sheltered houses but who would be happy if they had a ground floor flat for the time being to which they could gain access without having to climb stairs. That sort of house, once having been purchased by an elderly tenant and resold, may not go to elderly people. It may go to anyone else who wishes to acquire that house because he or she likes a ground floor flat. If there is such a demand for housing for the elderly, any house that is fitted for the disabled or suitable for the elderly should be reserved in the housing bank for that purpose.
Therefore, I am wholly behind the Opposition in what they are seeking to do for the disabled and the elderly in exempting that classification of house from the list. I congratulate them on giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter once more. Perhaps we shall be outvoted by Conservative Members, as has happened previously.

Mr. Home Robertson: Where are they?

Mr. Wilson: When it comes to Divisions, hon. Members tend to come out of the woodwork.
If the Government decide to oppose this valuable new clause, that exception will be reversed. Why should that be done? The Government should not be tied to every detail of the legislation that was introduced about two years ago. They should graciously accept the valuable and limited point made in the new clause.
My final point relates to amendments Nos. 76, 79 and 80. The hon. Member for Garscadden gracefully flitted over amendments Nos. 79 and 80 and rested his case mainly on amendment No. 76, which proposes to excise clause 47 from the Bill. That may be an estimable intention, but unfortunately those of us who were not on the Committee are not aware of the arguments that would make that necessary. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be wrong to give discretion to the Lands Tribunal. However, sometimes it is useful to give discretion to such a statutory body. It all depends on the nature of the discretion and the other rules that it is bound to keep. Therefore, before deciding whether I shall support amendment No. 76, I shall wish to hear not only the hon. Gentleman speak at greater length about that matter, but the Minister justify the changes that he is proposing to make.
I am glad that we have been able to start with the important subject of housing which concerns a great many people. In view of the Government's disastrous policy to reduce expenditure on housing when there is such great need, I ask them to reconsider some of the points that have been made, hearing in mind that I shall be glad to support them on the new clause to cure individual abuse. If they are willing to cure individual abuse, I hope that they will be willing to cure general abuse in certain categories.

Mr. Norman Buchan: This is my maiden speech on the Bill. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Scottish housing problem. I shall refer in particular to new clauses 6 and 9 and to amendment No. 76.
From the beginning the Opposition have opposed the Government's proposals to give tenants the right to purchase their houses regardless of local needs and of the wishes of the local authority. In a number of areas, specific hardship is caused. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, we knew what would happen in the areas with better amenities.
There is an opportunity for the Government to respond to real local needs. The first is in relation to rural housing. The problem that we are facing in rural areas stems partly from the lack of rural policy by both this and the previous Government. The problem has been heightened by the decrease in the number of people who live and work in the countryside.
During the last 15 years about 125,000 agricultural workers have left the land. That does not necessarily mean rural depopulation, because there are plenty of commuters coming in, but it means that those who worked on the land and contributed to the preservation of our rural life have left. A problem arises in the attempt to reverse agricultural policy and to develop a positive policy to encourage the rural economy in other ways.
In that situation the provision of local authority housing becomes paramount. The purchase and consequent sale of local authority housing will not be to people who are working on the land or in the rural economy, but to the commuter and the weekender. In other words, the process of depopulation will be sharpened, because people who work on the land will be forced out of rural areas. In addition, there is pressure on jobs and pressure because of a lack of housing. Such a policy is adding to the erosion of a healthy rural economy.
That erosion is not aided by the situation facing the rural worker. In England and Wales there has been the abolition of tied cottages and the local authorities have a duty to provide houses when they are also being compelled to sell houses, but that is not the case in Scotland. In a rural area in Scotland a worker in a tied cottage may lose his job. The local authority may wish to exercise its discretion and assist in giving him a house, but it is finding that its stock of houses is being denuded. Therefore, there is less of a case in rural areas for continuing the policy than there is in the cities. In rural areas, we are seeking to bring about a change in policy.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that there was a case for a local option. He cited Caithness. In new clause 6 the local option exists, because if a local authority does not wish to purchase, it does not need to do so. When I look at that new clause, I am astonished at the moderation of my hon. Friends. It could have been, and needs to be, tougher. However, I recognise that my hon. Friends are relying on the goodwill of the Government, with their craven majority, and that the only way in which the new clause might be accepted is if that majority is dented and we gain support for this moderate proposal.
There is no justification for the local option unless there is a massive surplus of houses. But even if there is, it must be given the opportunity of being exempt, so that local authorities have the chance to purchase property hack. I plead with the Government to reverse their policy for rural


areas. The opportunity for a local option should be given. Rural areas are being depopulated. Craftsmen, tradesmen and farm workers are leaving and houses for them should be available.
6.30 pm
The House has experienced the argument in new clause 9. We remember the promises that were given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and the Government, but the number of amenity dwellings covered is small. Glasgow had only 28 and Grampian and Aberdeen had about one half of the 4,000 dwellings between them. In practice, therefore, the Government's concession to protect the disabled and the elderly by retaining the stock of amenity dwellings was a hollow promise.
In the area that I represent. Renfrew district council has no amenity dwellings that will be covered by the criteria laid down by the Government. Not one house will be protected and maintained by the local authority as a result of the Conservative proposal. The Minister represents that area also. He should know the problems there. He should know that not one house that is being let and is intended for the elderly or the disabled will be protected by the legislation.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will my hon. Friend give way to allow the Minister to reply?

Mr. Buchan: I shall gladly do so. The Minister must hear a responsibility for the area that he represents. It is shameful that he did not stand up immediately in the face of the craven majority behind him—the few of them who are present—and accept my proposal on the spot.
The disabled and elderly cannot easily rectify the problem that will be created by the sale of houses that are specially made for them. Their problem is different from that of young couples, who perhaps work—which would be a lucky event these days—and can probably save to purchase a house. In Renfrewshire, young couples must save to purchase their own houses, because the housing support grant has been savagely cut, as has the house building programme and the home improvements and repair scheme.
Young couples might be able to purchase a house, but the elderly and disabled, by definition, are unable to enter that market. They are wholly reliant on the provision of public housing. The houses that they need are now being sold off. That represents a reduction in the available housing stock. It is disgraceful. I hope that the Minister will answer the case. I do not want an answer that juggles the recent figures for Renfrew district council.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman from the other part of Renfrewshire for giving way. Will he explain why Renfrew district council underspent by £1 million its capital housing budget?

Mr. Buchan: That is exactly my point. It is a waste of time for the Minister to juggle with the figures. The answer is that not only do I not know, but Renfrew district council also apparently does not know. However, one thing is certain. The so-called underspend, which has not yet been properly analysed, was not an underspend of money, but a lack of borrowing. It was borrowing consent that the council had not used, so it does not add much to the

housing figures. That is one reason why I am glad that the Minister responded. I am pleased to have that matter out of the way.
I return to the point that I was making about grant concessions on amenity dwellings. None has been provided in my area. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that local authorities do not necessarily build houses that are different and specially designed for the elderly. They also operate a letting policy of housing that is more suitable for the elderly.
Another local authority in my area, Inverclyde, has a 10-storey block of flats. It operates an intelligent policy of letting most of the flats to the elderly, and a smaller proportion to young couples. As a result, the young couples can help the elderly. The authority has thereby created a sense of community and independence. By no token can those properties be brought under a highly specialised category of housing. They are ordinary flats.
More consideration should be given to such housing. If the Government cannot find it in their hearts to provide a special housing support grant for more specialised housing, they can at least encourage an intelligent social and community policy of letting. They can enable local authorities to reserve housing that can be earmarked for that purpose.
One of the saddest aspects of the legislation is that we are depriving the disabled and the elderly, more sharply than other age groups, of housing. The rural areas, where special factors apply, are being singled out. The Government can give concessions on both of the points that I have made. Let us ensure that my suggestions are accepted and enable local authorities to exercise an option if they so choose. If local authorities do not feel that my suggestions go far enough, we should impose upon them a duty to prevent the sale of such properties.
Amendment No. 76 would do away with clause 47 and the right of the lands tribunals to intervene. If my memory serves me correctly, I reactivated the lands tribunals.

Mr. Ernie Ross: So it is all my hon. Friend's fault.

Mr. Buchan: No, it is not my fault. The lands tribunals were reactivated for a specific purpose. I was looking for a specific instrument to deal with the problem of feudal superiors exercising tyrannical power over tenants with regard to purchase and so on. The Tories then came along and turned the idea on its head. Instead of giving tenants the power and freedom, the Tories have used it to impose yet another tyranny on the tenants, and even on the local authorities to whom the original tenants could look for some protection. In spite of the technical problems for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that this matter can be pushed to a vote and carried.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) asked me to draw the attention of Mr. Speaker to strong representations from him and a number of other hon. Members about the fact that Mr. Speaker had not selected for debate new clause 5. I have made representations to Mr. Speaker on the hon. Gentleman's behalf, but Mr. Speaker has asked me to say that he regrets that he cannot change his selection.

Mr. Foulkes: Naturally, I am deeply disappointed, but I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Clerk for making those representations.

Mr. Home Robertson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), I am disappointed, although I fully accept the statement that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have made.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), I represent a largely rural constituency and I, too, wish to say something about the problems created by the sale of local authority houses in rural areas of Scotland. As we are debating what at Labour Party conference would be described as a substantial composite, consisting of no fewer than 12 new clauses and amendments, it may be helpful if I work through them in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper.
It is appropriate that the Report stage of the Bill should take place this week, when the people of Scotland go to the polls to elect their own regional councils whereas the proposals before us are entirely concerned with interference in the activities of local authorities. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has done us the favour of actually showing his face in the debate.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Which one is he?

Mr. Home Robertson: I think that he is the third one along in the middle.
The Secretary of State has done nothing but interfere with the conduct of local affairs since he took office. Many of us wish that he would let the people of Scotland elect their local authorities and then let the authorities get on with their work.
I am heartily sick of explaining to Conservative Members that neither I nor, so far as I know, any other Opposition Member has any objection in principle to owner-occupation of houses. Indeed, it would be ridiculous and hypocritical for a Member such as me to object to people owning their own homes. My concern, however, is for the 2,000 people on housing waiting lists in my constituency, and for the much greater number of people on waiting lists elsewhere.
New clause 1 deals with the deposits or charges that may be imposed by local authorities. I believe that the Minister said that Stirling district council may be imposing the kind of charge that he has in mind. He also implied that East Lothian district council in my constituency imposes such charges. I understand from a member of that district council, however, that, although the council at an early stage reserved the right to impose such charges, it has not actually collected any money on this pretext.
In a sense, it is not wholly unreasonable that local authorities should seek some means of covering the administrative costs of operating the scheme. Just as estate agents in some circumstances ask people to pay the cost of obtaining particulars of properties that they wish to purchase, as it clearly costs the agents money to print material and to deal with the administrative work involved in advertising property for sale, and so on, local authorities also have to face additional costs as a result of having to operate this scheme.
The Minister has made it clear that he does not wish the authorities to recover the costs from the people buying the houses, but he has not favoured us with an explanation of how they are to recover the costs. Perhaps they are to recover them from the ratepayers, although I understood that the Minister liked to style himself the ratepayer's friend. Perhaps he will increase the rate support grant to cover these costs.
6.45 pm
Some curious suggestions have been made by people speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland as to how the administrative work involved is to be carried out. The leader of the Conservative group on East Lothian council suggested that all the administrative work should be carried out by the Lands Tribunal, and that the district council should not do any of it. The Secretary of State's counsel at a public inquiry into the sale of council houses in East Lothian, Mr. Craig Henry, suggested that the purchasers should draw their own deed plans. That strikes me as a recipe for chaos, as there may be overlapping properties and the same piece of land or garden may be sold twice. The same learned counsel also suggested that the district valuer's valuation should be legally binding on the district council as the seller, and that even if there were a clerical error in it—the odd nought added on or left off—the district council should not have the right to query it. That is the kind of argument that has been advanced to try to get around the administrative problems that are bound to arise in property transactions of this kind.
New clause 6 is intended to safeguard housing in rural areas of Scotland. This is of great importance to me as I represent a mainly rural constituency. Clearly it is vital for small communities in rural areas that there should be a reasonable amount of housing available to let, so that the communities can remain alive. It is important that young people should be able to find houses even if they cannot afford to buy, so that communities do not suffer unnecessary social distortion, for instance, by large numbers of retired people coming in from urban areas,
It is certainly true—I shall adduce evidence for this later—that pressure is building up on the better quality housing in the better amenity areas throughout Scotland. It follows from that that the housing that will be left for letting to prospective council tenants in the future will be the poorer housing in the less attractive areas.
In constituencies such as mine there is also the problem of holiday houses. Clearly people cannot buy holiday houses directly from the local authority. In the past two or three years, however, some tenants in my constituency have bought their houses and then died or decided to move elsewhere and the houses have been resold. Naturally, the seller wishes to obtain the highest price that he can, so he sells to the highest bidder. It is no surprise to Opposition Members, nor, I suspect, to anyone else, that in attractive rural or seaside areas the highest bidder is not the young family struggling to buy their first house. I hear the Minister muttering. Does he wish to say something?

Mr. Maxton: He is embarrassed.

Mr. Home Robertson: He should be embarrassed at what he is doing.

Mr. John Corrie: Can the hon. Gentleman estimate how many agricultural cottages in his area have been made holiday cottages by farmers and estate people? Surely that is taking housing stock out of the agricultural areas he is talking about?

Mr. Home Robertson: That is a perfectly fair point. I have not the detailed information for which the hon. Gentleman asks, but he is right to point to the problem that is being created in some areas by the fact that former agricultural tied housing is being sold to the highest bidder. It is bad enough for a remote house, perhaps a farm


cottage, to be sold; it is 10 times worse for a house within a small village community to be lost to the local community in circumstances of this kind.

Mr. William McKelvey: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even worse if it is a tied cottage from which there has been an enforced eviction and which is sold as a holiday cottage?

Mr. Home Robertson: I was about to move on to the question of agricultural tied housing, because it is relevant. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that what he has described has occurred. People have been evicted from agricultural tied housing on the pretext that the farmer requires the house for an incoming worker, but within months the house has been sold as a holiday house. I do not want to overstate my case. I am not saying that this is happening all over Scotland, but it has happened, it can happen, and it is an abuse.
As a number of hon. Members know, I have in the past attempted to amend the legislation concerning agricultural tied housing in Scotland to bring it into line with the improved legislation that applies in England and Wales. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I intend to do everything we can to press for that. Many of us feel that it will be not only beneficial from a housing point of view but useful for the agriculture industry.
At present, if a farmer requires accommodation for an incoming worker in Scotland and he has either the widow of a former worker or a retired worker living in a farm cottage, he cannot go through the civilised procedures available in England and Wales. He has to get a court order for the eviction of the farm worker and his family. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West suggested that there are not proper procedures for getting these people rehoused by local authorities, and of course there are not. Nevertheless, the local authority must house them, because when they have been evicted they are homeless and become eligible for housing under the housing of homeless persons legislation. So it is a pretty unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is perfectly right and I never suggested anything to the contrary. I was talking about the existing process, which as he says is a gentler and more civilised process in England and Wales than that in Scotland. But the effect is the same—difficulty is imposed on a local authority whose stock is slowly being eroded.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is quite right. The impact of the process that this Government have set in motion is already reducing the housing stock, not dramatically but significantly, and is creating problems of the type he has described. Indeed, after my Ten-Minute Bill on this question had a Second Reading in rather curious circumstances—the Government Back Benchers who had appointed themselves as Whips forgot to shout "No" at the appropriate moment; I think one of the Members concerned is now a Government Whip, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) —discussions took place between myself, representatives of CoSLA, representatives of the National Farmers Union in Scotland and representatives of Shelter and it became clear that everybody concerned with this problem, including the

farming industry and local authorities, was aware that the situation was being aggravated because a disproportionate number of houses were being lost in the rural areas.
This legislation has yet another effect on rural communities in Scotland. We are getting an increasingly aged population in some of our small villages, because when a house is sold to the highest bidder in the circumstances I have described on many occasions it is not a young couple who buy it; it is someone from one of the cities. Therefore, geriatric communities are being created quite unnecessarily in some of our small villages. It ought to be one of our objectives to keep a balanced population in all our communities throughout Scotland.
I cite as evidence of the fact that a problem is being created a paper which has been submitted to the housing committee of East Lothian district council. I have no reason to believe that the same factors outlined in this paper do not apply in all the other rural areas of Scotland. It reads:
Applications to purchase have been received representing 3 per cent. of the total district council housing stock. However, within this figure there are substantial local variations. Applications within specific letting areas range from 0·8 per cent. in Wallyford and Whitecraig",
which are former mining villages, to 6·8 per cent. in Longniddry, which is near the coast, 5·6 per cent. in Pencaitland, which is getting up towards the attractive area in the Lammermuir Hills, and 6 per cent. in Port Seton and Cockenzie, again on the coast. These also show disproportionate numbers of applications.
In the town of Musselburgh one letting area containing less than 30 per cent. of the town's public housing stock generated nearly two thirds of the applications for housing.
Noticeable preferences are also apparent in the size and type of house subject to purchase. On the north coast applications to purchase two-apartment houses represent only 0·8 per cent. of the total, although this size of house represents 10·3 per cent. of the public stock. Conversely, 43·2 per cent. of applications are from tenants of four-apartment houses, whereas this size of house represents only 31·3 per cent. of the stock. Indeed, in some areas tenants of a substantial proportion of the four-apartment stock have applied to purchase. For example, in Gullane, which is in the area of the Muirfield golf course, 13·3 per cent. of tenants in four-apartment houses wish to purchase, in Longniddry 10·5 per cent. and in North Berwick 9 per cent.
Those are relevant figures that show the sort of discrepancies in the way that the right-to-buy legislation is working.
The paper goes on to say:
Over three-quarters of applicants are tenants of detached, semi-detached and end terrace houses whereas only 6·6 per cent. of applicants currently live in flatted accommodation, which comprises 28 per cent. of the stock.

Mr. Foulkes: Here is someone who is looking for a house in Scotland.

Mr. Home Robertson: I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) has found one. If he has, I sincerely hope it is not in East Lothian.

Mr. Foulkes: Would my hon. Friend advise the right hon. Gentleman to seek a short-term tenancy if he is looking for a house in Scotland?

Mr. Home Robertson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has only a short-term tenancy of this Chamber, because he has already left. Anyway, far be it from me to offer that kind of advice to him.
The final paragraph of this paper is particularly relevant to new clause 6:
Another noticeable feature is the situation in some of the smaller settlements within the District where a substantial proportion of the public stock is likely to be sold. In Humbie applications to purchase have been received from tenants of 3 of the remaining 4 council houses, in Stenton 4 from 16."——
and I could go on to cite others. In one small community in Berwickshire—it is in my constituency—there were only four council houses. All of them have been sold. Anyone who wants to rent a house in that area may as well give up and go somewhere else.
7 pm
New clause 9 concerns safeguards for the disabled and the elderly. Last year, or the year before, the Secretary of State for the Environment, under parliamentary pressure, made a concession. He said that certain safeguards would be enshrined in English legislation for the public ownership of specialist housing for the disabled and the elderly. He honoured his promise and undertaking. I wish I could say the same for the Secretary of State for Scotland. When the necessary amending legislation was brought before the House, it became clear that it had been drafted in such a way that most of the houses in Scotland were not safeguarded.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman attribute that to malice or incompetence?

Mr. Home Robertson: I suspect a combination of both. In view of the company that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) keeps nowadays, he should be more familiar with these things than I am. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I bear no malice towards him personally.
My concern about the problems of access to buildings generally for the disabled is well known. I make no apology for having raised the issue on numerous occasions in Committee and in the House. I have made numerous attempts to ensure that public buildings in Scotland are properly accessible to the disabled. What could be more important than for the disabled to have access to their own homes? Surely they should be able to pass through the door of their house without having to face enormous difficulties. We all have constituents who are suffering from various disabilities related to age—for example, arthritis and rheumatism—and many of them find it difficult to enter and leave their houses.
Over the years local authorities have gone to great lengths to try to build suitable housing to meet the requirements of the disabled and the elderly. However, houses that were intended to be used by those people are being sold to others because in Scotland we do not have the same safeguards as in England and Wales. The highest bidder is not normally an elderly or disabled person. He will be someone who wants a particular size of house in the neighbourhood where the sale takes place. The figures to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred are just as alarming as the figures that we discovered when the Government introduced their pitifully inadequate amending legislation,

which in Scotland failed to fulfil the promise given to the House on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
It is ludicrous that only 4,126 houses throughout Scotland are protected by the amending legislation. Practically all of them are in Aberdeen and Kirkcaldy. Only a handful of them are in my constituency. This means that those who are disabled and/or elderly and who have difficulty in getting up and down steps will have to wait that much longer for suitable housing.

Mr. Maxton: rose——

Mr. Home Robertson: I must advise my hon. Friend that it will be a long night. The Government have tabled numerous amendments and new clauses. It is scandalous that we are to have only one day to discuss the Bill on Report. A tome of amendments and new clauses has been prepared by the Government. It appears that we are expected to plough through it and to give the amendments and new clauses proper and adequate scrutiny within one parliamentary day. Some time has already been lost, quite properly——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not be tempted by sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am surrounded by sedentary interrupters.
Amendments Nos. 78, 81 and 113 refer to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. I fear that we are being asked to compound an error that has been built into the Bill in clause 47. Is the tribunal up to the job that the Government have in mind for it? I understand that it consists of one judge, two chartered surveyors and a lawyer. Presumably it has administrative staff. Counsel for the Secretary of State at the public inquiry into council housing in East Lothian suggested that the tribunal's valuations for the purpose of council house sales should be mandatory. If that suggestion is being advanced on the Government's behalf, it is doubly important that the tribunal should get its figures right. I wonder whether it is able to do so. Even a typing error may lose an authority many thousands of pounds.
The Conservative group in one of the local authorities in my constituency thinks that the tribunal should conduct all the council house sales itself without local authorities being involved in the conveyancing. That is a curious idea as well.
As I have said, I fear that the amendments will compound an error that has been built into clause 47. The clause should be done away with and, therefore, I support amendment No. 76. Is the tribunal an appropriate body to excercise the discretion which is envisaged? I understand that it is a judicial body. Surely it is inappropriate for such a body with such a staff to exercise commercial and social discretion of the sort required by the Bill.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is bursting to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the interests of brevity and to illustrate my wish to make progress, I shall resume my seat.

Mr. Maxton: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for rising during his speech. I did so because


I thought that he had finished. His latter remarks were extremely apposite. I hope that he did not think that I was seeking to curtail his remarks. That was not my intention.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am very upset.

Mr. Maxton: If my hon. Friend is upset, I doubly apologise to him. I am sure that he will forgive me as the night proceeds. I shall not be tempted further by my hon. Friend's sedentary interruptions.
It is appropriate that we should be debating part of the Tenants' Rights, Etc (Scotland) Act 1980 in the context of the Bill only two days before the regional elections in Scotland. That was the first of the Government's measures to take powers away from local authorities. The Bill is the latest legislation by which the Government are seeking to take powers away from Scottish local authorities. Therefore it is right that on the Government's third anniversary we should be examining the first Act as well as considering the Bill.
There has been an erosion of the power of local government and its ability to take decisions at local levels about the future of local services and areas. That has been the trend throughout the Government's term of office. The Government's constant claim throughout the past three years has been that the ratepayers of Scotland support them and that the ratepayers believe that the Government are right. My view—and so far the opinion polls bear me out—is that the elections on Thursday will show that the electors of Scotland, and in particular those in areas, such as Lothian which the Government have hit hardest, will prove the Government wrong and will give their wholehearted support to the present administration in the Lothian region.
On Friday night, I saw the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) squirming at the results of an opinion poll which, after what the Government believed was a popular measure, showed that support for the Conservative Party in the Lothian region was 23 per cent.
I come now to new clause 1 and to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Before my hon. Friend leaves his important point about the Lothian region and the elections in Scotland next Thursday, would he consider it appropriate to suggest to the Minister responsible for local government that if the election result confirms the poll to which he referred, the Minister should tender his resignation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will not be tempted to answer that. I do not see the elections mentioned in new clause 1.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend makes a good point but I would not accept the Minister's resignation. More appropriately, perhaps, the Secretary of State might withdraw the order that he intends to make against Lothian region in terms of the rate and grants that he intends to give to Lothian region. That is a matter that he would have to consider.
I return to new clause 1. I found very odd the Minister's answer to a question that I put to him during his speech concerning the difference between charges and deposits.

It is the first time that I have heard a deposit described as a charge. A deposit is lost only if the option to purchase is not taken up. If the person who has paid a deposit goes ahead and purchases the property, the deposit is then deducted from the purchase price. I assume that that is what the Minister means by a deposit.
I hope that the Minister is listening and is not busy doing his correspondence. It can be called a charge only if a person who has decided to purchase is asked for a deposit and then decides, for whatever reason, that he is unable to continue. In the present circumstances that may be because he has been declared redundant and is no longer able to afford to continue with the purchase of a house. Only then can it be called a charge, because the person has lost the deposit.
I should have objections to local authorities imposing that type of deposit on tenants who are seeking to buy. I find it irresponsible of the Government to expect local government, on commercial grounds, to work towards the standards of private enterprise and private industry and then impose different standards on local authorities from those which apply to the private sector.
7.15 pm
I shall give an example of the private building sector. About seven years ago I bought a new house. When I first intimated my intention to the sellers, I was asked to make a deposit of £100. Having made that deposit, I had to look for a mortgage to pay for the house, because, despite what some Conservative Members may think, I could not afford to buy a house out of my own bank balance. If a mortgage had been refused me, I should have lost my £100 deposit.
That is the normal practice within the private building sector. Therefore, why should the Government, who believe so strongly in the private sector and in the standards of private industry and private enterprise, object to a local authority imposing the same type of standards in order to discourage the frivolous person who might tie up local authority manpower in making searches?
Searches must be made to show that a person has the tenancy, and, therefore, the right to a rebate on the price. It is not only a matter of researching a tenancy in the particular district in which a person rents a house. In some cases the local authority may have to research the tenancy of people in other districts.
I give as an example a case on which we had long arguments in Committee. A person from a local authority in England is first given a council house tenancy in Scotland and then given permission to purchase his house. The discount that he receives is calculated not just on the period of tenancy in the district authority in Scotland, but on the basis of his tenancy in the other authority. Both tenancies must be researched. Carrying out such searches involves heavy costs for local authorities. Surely it is not inappropriate for the Government to impose the same standards in such cases as those imposed by the private sector.
If a house is to be sold and a search into the lease of the property has to be carried out by a lawyer or a surveyor, it is not the seller of the property but the purchaser who has to pick up the bill for lawyers' and surveyors' fees. If that is the case for the private sector, what are the Government doing by saying that a local authority cannot do the same thing in the sale of its property? It is illogical for the Government to have such


double standards for the public and private sectors, particularly when they say that local authorities must work in the same way as private enterprise.
It is often said that local government is inefficient because it does not have to be cost-effective in the same way as the private sector. The new clause would force local authorities to bear costs that no private seller would have to hear. Extra costs are being imposed on the landlord.
The Minister tells us that only two district councils are acting in that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian knows the East Lothian district council. He tells us that although the council has that rule it does not use it, so we are talking of only one district council. It is inappropriate for the Minister to take up the time of the House to impose extra burdens on local authorities for the sake of one erring district authority. The legislation is unnecessary.
Local authorities have had many financial burdens placed upon them by the Government, and they are now imposing further burdens on them. They are also taking away further rights from them. In the first instance the Minister could perhaps send a circular to local authorities saying that that is not the way to proceed. If the practice continues, further action could be taken.
New clause 6 relates to the problem of rural housing and the sale of council houses in rural authorities. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) is now on the Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Gentleman is in his honeymoon period. He will learn that that does not last for long. His hon. Friends will soon not say "Hear, hear" when his name is mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman was on the Back Benches in the Committee on the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Home Robertson: Quietly.

Mr. Maxton: Government Back Benchers tend to be quiet during debates on Scottish Bills, except when their constituency interests are involved. The hon. Gentleman was vocal about the sale of council houses in rural, and particularly holiday, areas. He will now presumably agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart).
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) will soon be on the Front Bench. With the exception of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), who made a mistake, the quickest route to promotion is through being PPS to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Home Robertson: I have checked the Official Report of the Committee debate on this clause. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) did not even hiccup or say "Hear, hear". My hon. Friend was being unduly flattering to him.

Mr. Maxton: I am talking about the debates two and a half years ago, and not the Committee on this Bill.
Many district councils are Conservative-controlled and have few council houses. Council houses are needed to keep the indigenous population in the area. They should not be sold to holidaymakers or commuters who do not take part in the local economy or social life. Many of them even purchase their goods and provisions outside the area.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire for mentioning his constituency, but I rent a holiday house on the Isle of Arran. In small villages in

holiday areas attractive council houses could be a bargain for people seeking holiday homes. In Blackwaterfoot there is a line of pensioners' houses. That links in with clause 9. They are 1 mile from the beach and from the golf course and tennis courts. They would be ideal for a couple as a holiday house. A sitting tenant could purchase a house which could later be sold by his successors to a holidaymaker.
In the area, three-bedroom houses sell for £30,000, which is beyond the reach of the normal worker. It is almost impossible for him to purchase a house. Most are seasonal workers, who earn good money in the summer and are unemployed in the winter. It is almost impossible for them to get mortgages. As the farm cottages disappear, perhaps to holidaymakers, local people are increasingly reliant for housing on the district council. If it cannot provide for them, they move to the cities and towns.
That may not yet be happening. Most people who have purchased their houses have not owned them for five years, so the discount has not worked through. After five years people who have bought at a large discount will have the opportunity to make a large profit. That is when the difficulties will start, particularly in rural areas.
New clause 9 touches on a matter that is very much a problem in Glasgow. The concession given for disabled peoples' housing will affect almost none of the housing in Glasgow. In essence, with the exception of a few specifically purpose-built sheltered houses, most of it is not covered by the Government's concession. The new clause will ensure that housing built specifically for the disabled and elderly will be used for that purpose.
7.30 pm
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) have at their surgeries, week in and week out, as I do, old people with serious ailments who are living in three-storey flats. Their families have moved away and the accommodation is too big for them. A variety of housing problems are brought to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. Elderly people seek a transfer, not to a house that is designed for the physically handicapped in the sense that they are in wheelchairs or so ill as to need regular nursing or supervision, but to one in which they can feel more protected and among people of their own age group, and so on. Under existing legislation the stock of suitable housing will be eroded, because the right to purchase such houses remains on the statute book. Two-room housing suitable for elderly people can be sold off, and although I do not know how many have been sold, that can be done under this legislation.
I congratulate my hon. friends on tabling the new clause, which will at least allow local authorities to stop the sale of such property and give the elderly and disabled some sort of hope that eventually they will get the housing that they require. The new clause also gives back to local authorities what they should have above all else, which is the social right to decide priorities in one small but essential part of their housing stock. This is an area where they work closely with other local government agencies. The decision is not made by the local council alone. The social welfare department is also involved.
Most of my right hon. and hon. friends would like to see the responsibility for council house allocations and


sales returned to local authorities. If we cannot have that, at least let us have it for housing that is suitable for the disabled and the elderly.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I confine my remarks to new clause 9, dealing with special purpose houses for the handicapped and pensioners' houses.
Whatever else may be said about the sale of council houses, it cannot be right to take houses from the local authorities' pool to rehouse needy tenants. The case for retaining special houses for special needs is irrefutable. I am sure that every hon. Member is faced with people in his surgery who are desperate to get moved from three, four or five flatted accommodation, or a house that is far too big for their needs, into a house more suitably adapted for their needs. Because there is a tremendous shortage of such houses, it is difficult to move those people.
People visit me on a Saturday morning having gone through all the procedures of the local authority. They have seen the housing visitor, visited the housing office, seen the local councillor, written to the housing manager, asked to see the housing manager—more often than not he has refused to see them—and having exhausted every other avenue they come to see me under the mistaken impression that their Member of Parliament has the power to direct the local authority to rehouse them.
It is difficult to explain that the role of the local authority in the allocation of housing is paramount—to use a phrase on everyone's lips in a different context—and that no one can interfere with the way in which local authorities conduct their business. They find that difficult to accept. They seldom voice their feelings, but I feel that they are leaving with the impression "This fellow is a waste of damn time. He is not trying to help at all."

Mr. Russell Johnston: Quite right.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston has returned from his perambulations abroad, at least for the moment. I shall leave his aside, because I am sure that it was meant as a joke, even though misplaced.
We all do our best to help our constituents. Some constituents have better cases than others. People with serious heart complaints may have been waiting for a long time for a house, but when there is a dispute between the local authority and the general practitioners about issuing medical certificates—a problem which I hope shortly will be resolved—it is extremely difficult for the local authority properly to allocate houses for special need. This leaves us in serious doubt about Government policy.
Even when the Government concede—which is not often—that a house sold by a local authority is a house out of the pool, they do not concede that it is a house taken out of the reach of the elderly or handicapped who are not financially able to purchase, even at discount prices. The aim has always been for the local authority to supply houses to those in greatest need. It is strange that the Government should be prepared to see houses with special features, or houses that can apply to people with special needs, made available to those with enough money to buy them. That disturbs the whole policy and priorities of the local authority house building programme.
In the Government's saner and more honest moments they may concede that argument, but their alibi is that the position is not serious because the local authority can

provide more houses. That is twisted logic, but let us take it at its face value. For every house suitable for special need that is sold, there is a requirement for the local authority to provide an equivalent house for those who are not able to buy. But local authorities have to build many more special purpose houses than they do now. I have the greatest sympathy for local authorities that are trying to establish a priority in their building programme. There are people who are homeless and people who are technically homeless in that they are living with their in-laws or in some sort of sub-letted accommodation. In addition, people are living in overcrowded accommodation, people whose health makes it necessary for them to be housed. Then there are the elderly. There are the middle aged who are living in houses which were big enough to satisfy the size of their family but when the children leave home the house becomes far too big and they need smaller accommodation.
People are living in houses that were built before the war and which have severe dampness problems. I shall not go too far into the question of defining dampness. The only criticism I make of local authority housing officials is that often the dampness complained of by tenants is thought by the officers to be condensation. However, there are families living in houses that badly need modernisation. The best way to modernise them would be to rehouse those tenants in accommodation of a more suitable size and make the newly renovated houses available to families that are large enough to suit their size. It is therefore difficult to determine priorities.
There can be no doubt that in terms of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act the Government are abusing their power. I recently received a letter from an organisation stating that in its view the Government ought to be more helpful to local authorities in order to provide special purpose housing especially for the physically handicapped. The Under-Secretary had hardly got as far as reading the pile of bumf in his second new job since he left the Back Benches when he was signing letters. He wrote to me saying that he had no sympathy with the problems of Aberdeen district council, because the way it could get money to provide more special purpose housing was to sell its quota of local authority houses. I defy the Under-Secretary to say where in statute there is power for the Government to fix a quota for a local authority to sell so many houses a year. There is no such power in statute.
Ten years ago I became a Member of this House with the rather innocent belief that Ministers had power to operate only if statute permitted them to do so. The principle enshrined in every book on constitutional law was that Ministers cannot act ultra vires except when it is laid down in statute. Yet this Government are saying on a purely arbitrary' basis that Aberdeen district council, Dundee district council, Edinburgh district council, Glasgow district council and so on must sell X number of houses and that if they do not they will hold back the money required to build special purpose houses or houses for the elderly or physically handicapped. That is an abuse of power, and it ought not to be tolerated.
The Government are simply saying that the only way in which sufficient housing can be provided for the elderly, and the only way in which local authorities can get the money to replace those houses taken out of the stock and sold to elderly or handicapped people, is to sell even more local authority houses.
Had the Government any concern whatever for the disabled, they would above all else make sure that the local authorities had sufficient finance to enable them to provide for their needs. Under the Government's own proposals, each authority must lay before the Secretary of State its housing plans for five years hence. Had the Government sufficient concern for the disabled, they would be making enough money available for local authorities to provide these special purpose houses.
The Government could at least do two things. First, they could say that when a house is sold they will provide sufficient money to replace it. That would be minimal, and it falls far short of what I should like to see. Alternatively, they could allow local authorities to specify a whole range of housing in different areas that would be available for special need.
We know that the Government have a fixation about local authorities. We know that they operate in the belief that on every occasion local authorities are trying to do the Government down and are trying to find a loophole in the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Maxton: They are paranoid.

Mr. Hughes: That does not wash, because the Government have sufficient safeguards in their hands. If a local authority which had previously provided only 1 per cent. of its housing stock for the elderly and the handicapped suddenly produced a range of housing that represented 50 per cent. of its housing stock, that would be clear evidence of abuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, the way in which the Government are paranoid about local authorities is beyond belief. On every occasion they say that local authorities cannot be trusted. I believe that the opposite is the case. The local authorities can be trusted. It is absolutely scandalous that the Government should use administrative discretion to make capital allocations in the housing sector. They ought not to behave in that way.
7.45 pm
If that were the only way in which the Government were bypassing their powers, we would have one target on which to focus. However, they are so obsessed with selling local authority houses that they do not care what happens to the priorities of local authorities. Local authorities must try to modernise a housing stock part of which was built pre-war and part of which was built immediately post-war. Quite apart from the fact that the standards of regulation then were nowhere near what they are now, the main priority at that time was to supply a number of units. In many respects, the standard had to wait. Therefore, at present many local authorities are busily trying to modernise old houses in which people have been living for 20, 30 or even 40 years.
Given the way in which the Government have steadily escalated rents, many of those people feel that they are entitled to a little bit more comfort. The Government are saying that even a newly modernised house can be sold. If a local authority decides that a row of houses requires modernisation, spends thousands of pounds on that modernisation and as soon as renovations are carried out the tenants say "I will exercise my right to buy", the Government are not even giving protection there.
It is quite wrong that local authorities should be forced into trying to extract a guarantee that if the houses are renovated the tenants will not exercise their right to buy.

In fact, the local authority has no right to exact such a promise from the tenant. As a result, some local authorities have said "We will move you out of this old house and put you in another house, perhaps slightly better but not completely modernised, but once your old house has been modernised you will not get back into it. We will put in a tenant who does not have an existing right to buy". That is causing all kinds of difficulties in the allocation of local authority housing.
I return to the specific point about special purpose housing. As I understand it, at present, unless a house is on an exclusion list—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) earlier gave figures for the number of houses that had been excluded—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are all in Aberdeen."] That is possibly because under wise heads in the past the Aberdeen town council provided a fairly substantial programme of specially adapted houses. I shall not weary the House with the kind of housing that is provided, or with the far-sightedness of the local authority in trying to weld together the elderly, the disabled and those in sheltered housing. If I were to do that, some hon. Members might think that I was being slightly immodest.
Most local authorities in Scotland try to operate fairness in their allocation programme by having a points system to allow the allocation to be as fair as possible. As soon as a house is provided on the basis of points and some one moves in, that person can exercise the right to buy. As I understand it, they do not have to be in a special purpose house for a number of years to be able to exercise the right to buy. If they have been in another local authority house for sufficient time to meet the general conditions of qualifying to exercise the right to buy the day after moving in to the new specially adapted house, it is not excluded and they can exercise their right to buy. Local authorities should have some guarantee against that.
We are saying that people are entitled to a special purpose house because of need, but we are also saying that if they have enough money to buy it then they can do so and take the right away from someone less financially able to buy themselves.
That cannot be right. It cannot be a policy that suits the needs of disabled people. The problem is perhaps manageable if a local authority has carried out a large programme of specially adapted houses. However, often local authorities, especially when dealing with the elderly, produce houses that may be suitable for the elderly but may also be suitable for the young as well. They may be suitable for the handicapped and suitable for the unhandicapped as well.
I know with certainty that within my constituency sons and daughters are putting up the money for their elderly relatives to buy a special purpose house or a house that is particularly, because of its size, suitable for the elderly, for the sole purpose of investment. It is not the pensioner who is buying his or her existing house. The family is buying it so that they can inherit it when the old couple pass on.

Mr. Maxton: I have heard of worse cases than that. Property speculators purchase houses for old people on the understanding that they will get them when the old people die.

Mr. Hughes: I have not heard of that in my constituency. However, if my hon. Friend has specific


examples of that, they ought to be reported immediately to the Secretary of State. I do not know what recourse the Secretary of State has. He would probably approve of it.

Mr. Home Robertson: He is probably doing it.

Mr. Hughes: However, I suspect that there is nothing that the Secretary of State can do. If it is not a genuine purchase, under the law he would have a case to take to court.
Both the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart might like to know that in my constituency a property speculating company has made an offer to the Aberdeen district council to buy the whole housing stock. Fortunately, that property company does not have the brains of a donkey, because if it had it would never have approached the council. I believe that even the Tories on the Aberdeen district council would be opposed to this. Certainly the Labour-controlled council is implacably opposed to it.
Perhaps the Secretary of State would tell us what would happen if a property speculating company were to go to a Tory-controlled authority and offer to buy the whole housing stock. Would the authority be willing to sell? I assume that it would be permissible under the law. Either it was a particularly stupid property speculating company, which did not realise that it would not be allowed to buy in those circumstances, or it checked the small print in the law and found a loophole. It would be scandalous if a property speculating company were able to find a loophole in the law that would allow it to take a large number of houses for pensioners and the disabled out of the market. What a boon that would be to the property speculators, and what a disastrous result that would have for the elderly.
The people who have the know-how, the policies and the understanding of the local situation to determine the priorities in housing needs are the local authorities. That is not to say that I do not have my quarrels from time to time with local authorities or that from time to time on individual cases I do not have to write rather hard letters, even to the Aberdeen council, about individual allocation policies. However, very few councils have not done their best to provide for housing needs.
Some authorities have, by the prudent exercise of their finances and flexibility of housing use, provided houses that can be used either by a pensioner couple or by a childless young couple. It would be sad if, because those houses are available for a more general use than that of specially adapted housing for the elderly and pensioners, they were taken out of whatever limited exclusions the Government have in their legislation.
There is no doubt that the tenants' rights Act, as time goes by, will be seen to be working in almost every sense against the needs of those who are desperate for housing and do not have the wherewithal to buy their own. Even if the Government were to carry their convictions to the extent of providing a tenants' rights Act dealing with people who lived in private rented accommodation—there is no question of their going that far—I should still oppose them in selling local authority houses out of stock.
I hope that the Government will accept new clause 5. It will go as far as we can expect the Government to go. It will not answer the problems in our constituencies but it will be a big help and go part of the way. The Minister is in a new job that he was suddenly slung into

after three weeks in another job. He was not in his previous Department long enough to make a name for himself. This evening he can make the name that he sought to make for himself on the Back Benches, as someone of an independent mind in examining problems, and as someone who is not hidebound by dogma. He can show himself as someone who is able to act like that if he will accept the new clause.

Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State for Scotland is my Member of Parliament and star of the cartoon strip in the Sunday Standard, to which we all look forward eagerly, none more so than the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt. At the outset I shall say that I intend to be mercifully brief.
The tenants' rights legislation is born out of the doctrinaire attitude of Conservative Members and out of a misunderstanding of the situation, particularly in large urban authorities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and perhaps Dundee and Renfrew, including Paisley. It is creating monstrous problems in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, and will create many more.
8 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian and I are unusual among Scottish Members. Now that we have lost the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to another tendency, we are the only two Labour Scottish Members who represent rural constituencies.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is being less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart), and also to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).

Mr. Foulkes: Inadvertently, I know not why, I had forgotten my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart). I travel through her constituency regularly as I drive up the A70, and I know that it is a rural area. My hon. Friends the Members for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) and West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) have rural areas, but basically they represent the broad central belt, which we never think of as rural.

Mr. Maxton: The large country estates of the Secretary of State for Scotland happen to be in the constituency of our hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to be brief. He should come back to new clause 1.

Mr. Foulkes: I am being brief; it is the interventions that are long. So far, I have said very little.
I am concerned about the effects of the legislation on rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian gave a number of examples. I have great respect for the Minister who, even in his two weeks, has written me some helpful letters. He has written some unhelpful ones too, but he tries hard, as they used to say on the old school reports. I ask him seriously to consider the situation in holiday areas like Dunure Maidens—a place that the Secretary of State will know, because it is not far from his constituency—or Kirkmichael, or Straiton. They are delightful holiday areas where many people have private holiday cottages. People have grown up there, gone to school, gone to work in the few factories


that still exist there, and then grown old there. From my work with Age Concern I know that it is desirable to keep people in their own areas as they grow old, the environment to which they are accustomed.
What has happened and is happening increasingly is that the small and attractive local authority houses in those areas are being purchased and then sold to people who come from outwith the area. There is no longer the local authority stock of housing, for people to change from one type of house to another as they move through their life cycle in these country and seaside villages. The Bill represents a serious distortion of the way of life of these villages. Conservative Members do not understand that. I hope that they will give some thought to what is happening. It is possible that the new clause may not be the best way to deal with the matter, but I hope that the Government will find a way to consider the special needs of rural areas.
My second point concerns special houses for the elderly and disabled. I worked for six years with Age Concern in Scotland. One of the things that worried us was the development of special housing for the elderly—sheltered housing, amenity housing, adaptations to existing houses, taking two or three apartment houses and adapting them to make them suitable for the elderly and disabled, linking a group of flats or houses to an electronic alarm system so that they are linked to a warden in another house. They are not custom-built for the needs of the elderly.
The Secretary of State is usually a very affable person, except when dealing with local authorities. We see the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character. On many occasions I see him smiling and affable and agreeable, but when it comes to the letter of the law, and putting things into the necessary legal provisions, we see the Mr. Hyde—not the Dr. Jekyll that we see when we meet him. I ask for just a little of the Dr. Jekyll for the elderly and the disabled.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not limit houses for the disabled and elderly as narrowly as he has done, because that will create problems. Both in rural areas and in the cities, people like to live in the environment to which they have become accustomed. Many old people die prematurely because they are moved out of the area in which they have grown up and in which their friends live, and into an area to which they are not accustomed. As a result, they die well before their normal life span. It is therefore important to have sheltered housing, special housing, adapted housing and housing of every kind for elderly and disabled people in the community. That will not happen with the limited number of exemptions that the Secretary of State has proposed.
It is ironic that Aberdeen is one of the authorities with a higher number of exemptions. It is an accident of history. It creates a severe anomaly. In Age Concern we spoke of Aberdeen as an example to other authorities, in an endeavour to encourage them to provide purpose-built housing. Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire provided more special purpose-built sheltered housing than any other local authority. Other authorities are catching up. Other authorities, because they do not have Aberdeen's long tradition of providing purpose-built sheltered housing, did the best that they could by adapting existing houses, by linking them together, and thus providing a perfectly adequate and reasonable system of sheltered housing, amenity housing and other houses for old people. Those

are not exempt. That is one of the accidents of history that is highlighted by the way in which the Secretary of State has drawn this clause so tightly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) tugged on our heartstrings and those of the Minister to try to get him to concede something. If the Minister were to concede too quickly, he would not remain on the Front Bench for long. He would be back in his old position. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) is encouraging him to concede so that he can move in. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give this matter some serious consideration. He must concede that he has received several representations on this issue from non-political organisations concerned with the elderly. They are not opposing for the sake of opposition. They are concerned about the narrowness of this clause and the problems which it will create for old and disabled people in the future.
As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) so eloquently anticipated many of the good points that I would like to make. I would like to reiterate the innappropriateness of the Lands Tribunal for the job that the Secretary of State is setting it. My hon. Friend described its membership. It comprises a judge and a couple of quantity surveyors—there are plenty of those; grab two of them and put them on the Lands Tribunal. It also includes a lawyer—there are even more of those around looking for work. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will confirm that. The Lands Tribunal is an ad hoc body, given the responsibility which should properly be that of an elected body. It is usurping the powers of the elected local authorities.
We have attacked the Government, and will be attacking them on amendment No. 1, for the way in which they are undermining the autonomy of local authorities. They are undermining local democracy. I look forward to taking part in that debate and making a somewhat longer speech than this brief intervention. The Lands Tribunal is an entirely inappropriate body. I suspect that the Secretary of State wanted some body to take on the responsibility of the local authorities that he considered to be defaulting and looked down the list of quangos that he has not done away with——

Mr. Home Robertson: Does my hon. Friend know which authority is used to implement the parallel part of the legislation covering council house sales in England? If he does not know, perhaps the Secretary of State can enlighten us.

Mr. Foulkes: I certainly do not know the English body. Perhaps the vast resources of the Conservative Party will come forward with the English body.
I am sure that when the Secretary of State looked down the list of quangos that have not suffered from the actions of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) he came across the Lands Tribunal. Perhaps he thought that that would be an appropriate body because houses are built on land. However, it is entirely inappropriate that such a body should be dealing with matters which are properly the purview of the local elected council. They are the people who know the area, the local conditions and who understand the local people and demands. They can make decisions in the light of the local situation.
8.15 pm
I do not know whether my hon. Friends have noticed, as I have, that the fact that some people have bought their houses and others have not is becoming divisive within communities. It is like the one or two people who send their children to private schools.
Unfortunately, I cannot talk about new clause 5. When I arrived today I felt a bit like one of the tenants applying for a council house. I found that my name was not on the list, and I could not find out why. I can understand why the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) got on the list. He has a large number of points for being elderly and disabled. I could not understand why I was not on the list. However, I understand the problem of tenants. When some people are able to buy their houses and some, through no fault of their own, are not, society is divided. It has increasingly become the case that people in good and secure employment are able to buy their houses. People who are unemployed—there are an increasing number of those—have no prospect of doing so. People on rent and rate rebates—the poor in society—are being further stigmatised because of their inability to buy their houses. This Act that the Government have willed upon Scotland is becoming extremely divisive within society.
Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North is not with us, I can say without fear of contradiction that the Government have no mandate to introduce this legislation in Scotland. I heard one of the hon. Members who represents the Scottish National Party in this Chamber say that we are not using that argument. I hope that he will get it right. I am one of the people who constantly uses that argument. The Government have no mandate in Scotland for the Scottish legislation that they are bringing through. If we had a Scottish Assembly, as was proposed by the previous Government—many of the people who proposed it in the last Parliament are now having second thoughts—we would not have had the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act, the Education (Scotland) Act or many other Acts which are plaguing the Scottish people at the moment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) says that he has used the Scottish mandate argument, and is using it today. Why is it that his party collectively refuses to use that argument?

Mr. Foulkes: It is not unknown for my party collectively not to use the same arguments as I do. I was in step on that issue for a long time, but I have been out of step on other issues—for example, the current problem concerning the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to reply to the intervention, but we must return to clause 1.

Mr. Foulkes: I am glad that you said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall have another opportunity to reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). He recently paid a visit to my constituency and did not tell me. That is another matter that I have to take up with him, but that would be out of order as well. The hon. Gentleman is now telling me that he did not know that he was in my constituency—so much for his geography.
If the Government were intent on improving housing in Scotland instead of spending the time as they have done

before on the tenants' rights Bill, they would have come forward with some positive legislation for Scotland. I do not know if it is the official policy of my party, but I would like to see some encouragement for imaginative tenant management schemes within local authorities. I would not object to the suggestion that local authorities should be encouraged to build houses for sale to satisfy the market rather than private developers and rather than selling off houses.

Mr. Maxton: The last Government set up a body called the tenant participatory service in Glasgow which is working in the field of tenant co-operation. It is under the constant worry that the Government will cut its funds completely. Its funds have already been reduced.

Mr. Foulkes: That is right. There are imaginative embryonic schemes. If we get nothing else out of this debate, I hope that the new Minister—a new broom sweeping clean—will assure us that he will give some impetus to tenant management schemes. I hope that we shall see some positive encouragement of the development of local authority housing because it needs improvement. I accept that not every local authority, whether Conservative or Labour-controlled, has an ideal tenant and housing allocation. Certainly house maintenance is not ideal.
Instead of positive encouragement from the Government we get negative suggestions and doctrinaire proposals. We must completely reject that, and I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will troop into the Lobby tonight in support of the amendments put forward so imaginatively by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Allan Stewart: We have had an interesting debate on a variety of topics in relation to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) began by waxing wrathful and expressing the indignation of Scottish local authorities and Scottish people about the Act. All the evidence is that the tenants' rights legislation is extremely popular. Opinion polls suggest that even among Labour voters the overwhelming majority entirely agree with and support the concept of the sale of council houses to sitting tenants.
We had some indignation at the beginning of the debate and a call for imagination from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) at the end. I agree with that call. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he was responsible for home affairs at the Scottish Office, visited an important new tenant management innovation in Glasgow. Whatever else one may say about Glasgow district, hon. Members would probably agree that it has been imaginative recently in its approach to some housing problems. We need imagination and we must get away from the blanket approach of the past.

Mr. Maxton: What the Minister is saying is correct and I am glad to see that he admits that, for co-operative tenancies, Glasgow is the best in Scotland. However, it is increasingly difficult to get tenants to agree to join co-operatives in Glasgow, especially if they are required to enter older housing. The money is not available to bring the properties up to the standards that the tenants wish to have before they will join a co-operative organisation.

Mr. Stewart: I shall say something about resources later, but the fact is that those schemes are going ahead. The homesteading scheme at Glenelg quadrant in Glasgow is another imaginative scheme.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and other hon. Members asked me what charges the Government are talking about in new clause 1. I referred to the charges, but perhaps I can repeat what I said. First, we are talking about charging a tenant who wishes to submit an application form a deposit which is not returned to him if he decides not to buy. Secondly, we are talking about imposing a penalty charge on a tenant who puts in an application form but eventually decides not to buy. I hope that that definition is clear. I was not sure whether Labour Members were generally in favour of those charges. It was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that he was not. However, this will affect only a small number of authorities, although other authorities might follow. The Government must deal with a potential problem as well as an actual one.
The analogy of the hon. Member for Cathcart with the private sector was not at all apt. In the sale of a council house to a sitting tenant the purchaser pays his own costs, as happens in the private sector. The point about a deposit in the private sector is that if someone then pulls out of the purchase the seller could, in principle, have sold the house to someone else. That does not apply to the sale of a local authority house to a sitting tenant.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East also asked me whether a tenant who is subject to those charges can go to the Lands Tribunal on appeal. He does not have that right of appeal. He could challenge the decision in the sheriff court, but that would be a difficult procedure for a tenant to undertake.
New clause 6 is one of the clauses to which the Opposition attach particular importance. I do not wish to labour the point about Renfrew district with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), but the Secretary of State sets gross capital allocations, and the money spent by Renfrew district in 1981–82 was below £1 million. I do not know the explanation for that, nor does the hon. Gentleman.
The issue was debated extensively when Parliament considered the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill 1980. The onus is now on the Opposition to prove that problems have arisen in practice with which existing legislation is inadequate to deal. We have received no representations that provide evidence of general problems either with sales in rural areas or with second homes. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), which showed, not surprisingly, that percentage sales in different areas varied, do not in themselves suggest that there is a serious problem.
The Government's point is that there is no case for the exclusion of rural houses from the right to buy because, as in non-rural areas, sales do not alter the balance between the available housing stock and the number of people looking for houses. Council houses being sold would not normally be available for reletting to those on waiting lists for many years. The only possible problem is that of the second home, because the balance of supply and demand is altered only if former council houses are resold for use as second homes.

Mr. Home Robertson: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, who is reading his brief very well. However, he is trying to skate round a serious point that both I and many of my hon. Friends have made, which is that once a house has been sold to a sitting tenant in an area where only small groups of council houses are available, it has to all intents and purposes been lost to the local community for all time, because those on low incomes cannot afford to buy. Therefore, young people especially will find it difficult to buy their first homes. I have given the Minister evidence from my constituency. I know that the Government have had representations, for example from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, so the Minister cannot deny that there have been representations about this real problem.

Mr. Stewart: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman the simple fact that the house is not lost to the housing stock in that area unless it becomes a second home.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: rose——

Mr. Stewart: I have given way many times, and I now wish to continue.
The evidence is against the existence of a growing number of second homes in Scotland. Hon Members will know of the study completed in 1977, which suggested that there would be no net growth in the number of second homes in Scotland. Thus, special restrictions should be available to local authorities only where there is evidence of a ——

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member has just made a monstrous statement about rural areas. The point is not just the question of the second home; there is also the question of the commuter and of the retired man. The effect is to cut down the amount of public housing for people who live and work within the rural community and within the rural economy. By definition, that is what is happening. We have areas where one person at work can make a significant difference to a small village. By the same token, the loss of one house can result in 10 per cent. of the total housing stock being sterilised. The hon. Gentleman really cannot get away with that.

Mr. Stewart: The point that I am making is a very simple one——

Mr. Buchan: Simple-minded.

Mr. Stewart: The house remains part of the housing stock for people who live in the area. It does not do so only if it is used as a second home. That is bound to be the case, and so the problem to which we have to address ourselves is that of second homes. That is dealt with the legislation. The Secretary of State can make a pre-emption order where more than one-third of the houses have been sold and an unreasonable proportion have been resold and are not being used as the only or principal home of the owner.
Those provisions were introduced on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang), who has a close knowledge of the problems in rural areas. They represent a perfectly reasonable set of safeguards to deal with the potential second home problem. Hon. Members have produced no evidence to suggest that the safeguards are not adequate. We have received no evidence from any district council on this matter.

Mr. Dewar: There is a good deal of anxiety among district councils. From correspondence that I have heard of, through Shelter, for example, I know that, if asked, district councils will express their anxiety. The Minister says that the situation in Scotland is satisfactory, but can he explain why a completely different conclusion was reached by the Department of the Environment in England, where I should have thought the threats and the pressures would be considerably less than in, for example, rural Highland areas?

Mr. Stewart: That is because conditions in England are different. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that we in Scotland should reach identical conclusions just because of conditions in England. There is no right of pre-emption in England, although he suggested that there was. The restriction in England is on resale to people living in a specified area.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: No. I must move on. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
I come to new clause 9. The answer to the general point made by a number of hon. Members is that it is simply not true that the Opposition discovered that the amendment Act was not identical to the 1980 Act and that that came as a bolt out of the blue. The whole debate on the amendment Act concentrated on the differences in drafting.

Mr. Dewar: Surely the Under-Secretary accepts that although the Opposition rightly expressed anxiety about the drafting, the bolt from the blue, which was concealed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), was the fact that exemption would be confined to such a narrow category as that recorded as amenity housing in the Scottish housing statistics. On examination, that turned out to be a non-existent category in most centres of population. That was an exercise in deception by Ministers, and the Under-Secretary ought to face the sins of his predecessors.

Mr. Stewart: I repudiate the suggestion that there was any deception. I recall that the debates were extensive and concentrated on this area.
On new clause 9, the onus is on the Opposition to demonstrate that the operation of the right to buy has produced clear evidence that the Act is unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire referred to the concern of organisations representing the elderly and I accept what he says, but we have received no representations from CoSLA on that point since the amendment Act came into effect. The evidence of the small number of applications to the Secretary of State under section 3A suggests that the large-scale sale of sub-amenity houses for the elderly is not a danger.

Mr. Foulkes: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that the reason why he is not getting representations from CoSLA is that the convention has so often made representations to which the Under-Secretary and his predecessors have paid no attention that it is getting fed up with wasting its time in making representations?
The voluntary organisations, perhaps because they have a little more enthusiasm, faith and hope, have continued

to make representations. Will the hon. Gentleman do something to give those organisations some encouragement for the faith and hope that they have shown in him?

Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that CoSLA has not given up making representations to the Government. It rightly makes many representations on a wide range of issues. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument.
The legislation differs between Scotland and England and Wales, but we do not have to follow slavishly what is done in England and Wales. Scottish legislation should be tailored to Scottish circumstances. The existing Scottish provisions were thoroughly debated and a number of amendments were considered.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I never thought that I would hear the hon. Gentleman expressing Scottish nationalist sentiments. He suggests that because Scottish law is different, it must always be different. We are asking for an intelligent use of the law to suit Scottish circumstances. If the Scottish law provides less protection than the English law, we ought to put it right.

Mr. Stewart: I was not sounding like a Scottish nationalist. Just because something is done in England and Wales, it does not necessarily have to be done in the same way in Scotland. What we do in Scotland must be tailored, first, to Scottish legislation and, secondly, to Scottish circumstances, and that is what the Government did in the amendment Act.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: No.

Mr. Home Robertson: This is discrimination.

Mr. Stewart: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman both in my opening remarks and in my reply.
Hon. Members are aware of the existing Scottish provisions, but it might be worth reminding the House of them. First, sheltered housing for the elderly and disabled is automatically excluded—a point which was not made by Opposition Members.

Mr. Foulkes: Yes it was.

Mr. Stewart: I apologise. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire mentioned it. Sheltered housing for the elderly and disabled is defined as a property that is one of a group and has specially designed or adapted facilities, which must include a call system and a warden system. Secondly, amenity housing for the elderly is excluded from the right to buy, subject to the Secretary of State's verification of the facts. We are talking mainly about amenity housing for the elderly. Some houses for the elderly cannot be conveniently categorised. They are defined as specially designed or adapted and as having facilities that are substantially different from those of an ordinary house. Thirdly, there is pre-emption for non-sheltered housing for the disabled. That is the position under the amendment Act.
The broad argument for the Scottish provisions is that houses should be excluded from the right to buy only where the community's interest in retaining them is so exceptionally strong that it overrides the claim of the tenant to the same rights as other tenants. The Scottish categories of sheltered and amenity housing reflect well-understood categories that are not used in England. Those


distinctions are an appropriate basis for the policy that has been pursued in Scotland by successive Governments since 1975 towards special provision for the elderly. If it has been pursued in relation——

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: I shall finish this point and then give way.

Mr. Home Robertson: What is wrong with me?

Mr. Stewart: I have already given way to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
If those distinctions are an appropriate basis for the policy pursued in Scotland by successive Governments since 1975 towards special provision for the elderly, it is reasonable to argue that they are also an appropriate basis for the policy on which houses need to be retained in public ownership. I shall give way to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.

Mr. Home Robertson: This is discrimination against the aristocracy!

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister described the responsibility of balancing the needs of the community with the needs of the individual tenant. Is not the most appropriate body to make the decision about balancing the needs of the community and of the individual tenant the local authority in the area concerned?

Mr. Stewart: In relation to the provisions in the Act, it is up to Parliament to lay down the legislative framework.
The disabled should not be doubly disadvantaged by not having the right to buy that other tenants have. Scotland's larger public sector tips the balance of the argument between the tenant and the community in the tenant's favour. The tenant's claim for equity with all other tenants is stronger than the case for the elderly, because many disabled people are young, have families, and are in employment. In other words, it is only their disability that distinguishes them from ordinary tenants. It would be wrong to make them victims of a double disadvantage by discriminating against them over the right to buy. Scotland's larger public sector housing stock——

Mr. McKelvey: I am baffled by the Minister's logic. He has managed to stand the case on its head. If an adequate number of houses were provided for the disabled in Scotland, no one would have the objections that the Opposition are voicing. Grossly inadequate numbers of houses are available for the disabled. If those houses are sold and taken from the pool some other disabled person will be grossly disadvantaged. Those are the points that we are making.

Mr. Stewart: We are giving high priority in housing policy to special needs, including the needs of the disabled. The key point that I am making is about the rights of the disabled tenant. There is no good argument for giving the disabled tenant the double disadvantage of depriving him or her of the right to buy, which all other tenants have.
Scotland's larger public sector housing stock makes the sale of individual houses less significant to the community interest than is the case in England and Wales. That is the basic argument. That is why the balance of the argument is somewhat different in Scotland from that in England and

Wales. Secondly, the Opposition have not produced the decisive evidence that would be necessary to justify asking Parliament to change its mind.
The case for clause 47 is straightforward. If a tenant is driven to go to the Lands Tribunal by a landlord not carrying out its statutory duty, it is only just that the tenant should not be worse off than if the landlord had carried out its duty to consider using the discretions.
8.45 pm
The hon. Member for Cathcart and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire questioned the validity of the Lands Tribunal and whether it is appropriate to the job. It does a quasi-judicial job. It is not a major administrative job, and the tribunal has exercised its functions effectively. One would expect the number of cases going to the Lands Tribunal to fall rather than increase as precedents are established.
If the tribunal is to act in the place of the landlord in those limited circumstances, it must have all the powers of the landlord. That was the intended effect of the legislation as drafted, but the tribunal has said that it does not have sufficient power to exercise discretion. The Government, therefore, are making the position clear through the amendments.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister for inviting me to take part. What discretions will be exercised? That has not been dealt with. That is why I was anxious to speak at the start of the debate.
There is a genuine distinction between a lands tribunal that is a quasi-judicial body being invited to take over the nuts and bolts of the conveyancing transaction and a lands tribunal being invited to exercise what is, in effect, a quasi-political discretion. The latter would normally be left to a directly elected body. It is hard to know what criteria it should apply. Perhaps the Minister will address himself to what advice he will give, as opposed to the type of discretion that he is about to define.

Mr. Stewart: The key point is that we are not discussing a general review power for the tribunal of the exercise by local authorities of the power of discretion. There may have been some misunderstanding about that in Committee. Secondly, when the tribunal is taking over the general landlord powers of a local authority, we argue that—it was the basis of the Bill—the tribunal should have the power of discretion that the landlord would have had.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me to describe the discretions. The first would be to allow joint purchasers who do not qualify as of right—for example, someone who has recently returned from service in the Armed Forces and has been resident for less than six months. A second discretion would be to allow for discount the time spent as the child of a tenant. The hon. Gentleman may have come across that problem. I have experienced it in Renfrewshire.

Mr. Dewar: That is exactly the kind of problem that the Lands Tribunal will face. If the local authority, a!; the directly elected political body, is given the right to exercise discretion by adding in a period of service as a tenant which would not normally be counted, thus significantly increasing the discount that may be given, to the disadvantage of the local authority, is it satisfactory that such discretion should be cheerfully passed over to an


administrative tribunal which is not open to pressures and arguments based on local realities and experience in the area concerned?

Mr. Stewart: This will apply only when the tenant is driven to the tribunal as a result of the landlord not carrying out his statutory duty in the first place. The key argument is that that failure on the part of the landlord should not deprive the tenant of the discretionary rights provided in the legislation. That was the intention. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, but I hope that I have clarified the position.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister is being helpful, but perhaps he will answer this simple question. For my benefit and that of everyone else who is confused about what the Government are doing, will he explain which body exercises this discretion under the parallel legislation in England?

Mr. Stewart: I am not responsible for the legislation in England.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman can find out from his advisers.

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has been well publicised that the powers are ultimately—[HON. MEMBERS: "Here comes the answer."]—Yes, it is exactly what I was about to say. In England, the powers are ultimately the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Home Robertson: We certainly do not want that.

Mr. Stewart: There is no direct equivalent to the Lands Tribunal procedure.
It is important to emphasise that the tribunal will never be reviewing the landlord's exercise of his own discretion. It will exercise its powers only when the landlord has failed to issue an offer to sell and therefore has not given a decision on how he would have exercised his powers. We are therefore dealing with a very limited number of cases.
A number of passing references were made to housing policy generally, but it would not be appropriate for me to dwell at length on that. The hon. Member for Garscadden said that sales receipts for Glasgow and East Lothian were unrealistic. I should point out that both estimates of receipts have been agreed by the district councils themselves, so they do not regard the figures as unrealistic.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked what the legislative authority was. Section 94 of the 1973 Act gives the Secretary of State power to limit authorised capital allocations.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was not seeking legislative authority for the Secretary of State to limit capital allocations. I am aware that he has statutory power to do that. What I challenge is his power to link capital allocation with his own arbitrary choice of a quota of houses that a local authority must sell in order to obtain capital allocations. There is no statutory basis for that, and well he knows it.

Mr. Stewart: It is not an arbitrary quota. It is an estimate, and it is in accordance with section 94, which does not limit how the Secretary of State exercises those

powers. The hon. Gentleman may or may not think that this is desirable, but I assure him that it is legal under the 1973 Act.
I do not believe that the Government amendments were seriously challenged by hon. Gentlemen. A number of hon. Members said that these were niggles and that we should be doing something different, but they did not seriously challenge the claim that these were desirable, and I do not think that the practices that they are designed to prevent have received any real support from the Opposition Benches.
The Opposition have laid emphasis on the clauses relating to rural areas and housing for the disabled and the elderly. The onus is very much on the Opposition to show why Parliament should change its mind on the present legislative provisions, which were debated very fully and very reasonably. I do not believe that the Opposition have met that essential need, and for these reasons we cannot accept the Opposition's new clauses.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister's argument that the onus of proof is on the Opposition may well be true, but the task is easily discharged, because both these new clauses strike at lamentably mistaken decisions taken by his Government when the original legislation was implemented. I found his reply disappointing. It was a bland, somewhat pedestrian defence of a misguided position and I thought that it was lamentably inadequate.
In order to avoid any doubt I say again that we do not intend to divide the House on new clause 1, but when we reach them in due order I shall invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in favour of new clause 6, new clause 9 and amendment No. 76. These are matters on which we probably cannot look forward with confidence to tonight's vote, but on which we shall continue to campaign until we get much-needed reform.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

POWER OF REGIONAL COUNCIL TO CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TOWARDS THE PROVISION OF RECREATIONAL, SPORTING, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES

'.—(1) A regional council may, as regards recreational, sporting, cultural or social facilities or activities, contribute—

(a) by way of grant towards expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by a district council; or
(a) by way of grant or loan towards expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by a voluntary organisation or other person, not being a local authority,

in providing or maintaining such facilities (or as the case may be in providing or promoting such activities); and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the powers under the foregoing provisions of this section in relation to cultural activities include the power to make such contributions as will promote music, theatre, opera, ballet and other arts.

(2) In the application of subsection (1) above to facilities which constitute a harbour, the reference in that subsection to providing or maintaining facilities shall be construed as including a reference to improving or managing them.'.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Brought up and read the First Time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 31, in clause 12, page 10, line 25, at end add
'and will be required to levy a one per cent. rate to that end'.
and the following Government amendments: Nos. 32 to 46, 51 to 53 and 117.

Mr. Fletcher: Our purpose in this new clause is to meet undertakings given in Committee. First, our object is to make clear within one clause the powers of a regional council to assist recreational, sporting, cultural or social facilities or activities. We agree that we must avoid any doubt as to the power of regions to continue to contribute in this way.
It was, I believe, made very clear in Committee how important support from the regions is for such facilities and activities. Among those mentioned were the national companies in the arts, such as the Scottish National Orchestra and Scottish Opera. There was reference also to significant tourist attractions such as the Nairn swimming pool, and these are among the sectors which regions should be free to assist.
In this clarification in the new clause we have also taken account of the argument in Committee that the Bill as originally drafted was too confined in clause 13(4) in restricting the assistance that a regional council could give to such facilities as benefited substantial numbers of person residing outwith the district in which the facilities were situated. It was evident from the arguments presented to us directly and in Committee that there could be many instances not meeting this criterion where a region thought it appropriate to give assistance. We accept that a regional council should be free to do so.
9 pm
I have made passing mention of the considerable importance of the aid which regional councils give to the arts, and it has been stressed in our proceedings by Labour Members and others, especially the Scottish Arts Council. For the avoidance of doubt we undertook explicitly to mention that
cultural activities and facilities
include the full gamut of the arts, and this we do in subsection (1). Subsection (2) relates to contributions by a regional authority in respect of harbour facilities. It is a necessary drafting provision to enable such contributions to include assistance in improving or managing such facilities. This is to ensure consistency in the clause with the wording of the other amendments that are being submitted to clause 14, which provides that district councils should contribute towards the expenses of a harbour authority in providing, maintaining, improving or managing a harbour, and the existing wording of clause 17, which enables a district council to acquire a harbour for "sporting or recreational purposes".
I trust that the new clause will find favour with the House.
The various amendments to clauses 12–16 have been grouped together as they concern the responsibilities of island and district councils in providing sporting, recreational, cultural and social activities, which I shall hereafter refer to merely as "leisure". Many of the amendments do not alter the general intention of the clause to which they relate or change the underlying policy and intention of the Bill in respect of leisure. They are technical drafting amendments which in the main have been identified as necessary as a result of criticism of the

drafting in Committee. The House is indebted to Committee members for their meticulous examination of the Bill. A number of the amendments propose deletions to enable a more logical reorganisation in the drafting.
Amendment No. 43 is only slightly more substantial. Its aim is consistency of provision. Under clause 17 the powers and duties of improving, maintaining and managing a harbour are vested in the district council that acquires by agreement a harbour used wholly for sporting or recreational purposes. The amendment will enable a district council to give grants to harbour authorities for the same purposes including the managing of a harbour used wholly or in part for sporting and recreational purposes. I hope that this clarification of the purpose and- extent of the Bill in this respect will be acceptable to the House.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 introduce a saving provision in respect of the power in clause 13, as amended by amendment No. 37, to charge for admission to facilities provided by councils for leisure and recreational purposes. The provisions introduced make it clear that a council's powers do not extend to charging for admission to a facility which an enactment provides should be open to the public free of charge.
In conclusion, all of the amendments are introduced to clarify the extent and purpose of the Bill. I hope that they will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The group of amendments and the new clause have been introduced as a result of the representations in Committee. We are grateful to the Minister for fulfilling his undertaking and for looking again at the rather doctrinaire application of the principle of concurrency that was held in the original Bill. I regret that, when introducing the new clause, the Under-Secretary did not give any flavour of the debate, the discussion and the strength of the representations that were made against what can only be regarded as an insensitively bureaucratic first draft.
The House would have been greatly assisted if the Minister had decided to withdraw the clauses and had provided us with a complete set of new clauses rather than this complicated system of amendments and paving amendments through which we have had to go and which the Minister has read with such passion and conviction.
We are qualified in our enthusiasm for new clause 2 because regional authorities that do not have the political mechanisms within their organisation to provide an adequate pressure group within the regional councils on behalf of the arts will be hard pressed to find the money. We have argued the case in Committee, and it must be reiterated on the Floor of the House, that the local and regional authorities carve up their resources on the policy and resources committees.
Most regional authorities have within the policy resources committees representatives of all the major spending committees. The policy resources committee, which could almost be called the cabinets of regional authorities, is where the budgetary debate takes place in its hardest political form. We remain dubious of the likelihood of the regional authorities being able to give the type of resources that are required by the arts in Scotland, if they are to continue in their present form. It is significant that national companies in Scotland such as the Scottish National Orchestra and the other bodies to which the Minister referred, depend for about 25 per cent. of their


grant income on regional authorities. Authorities such as Lothian and Strathclyde contribute a large proportion of the income that is received by the arts in Scotland.
The Government have gone some way to meet our objections, but we lack confidence in new clause 2, although we shall not oppose it. I regret that the Minister did not pay attention to amendment No. 31, and we shall be interested to hear his views. Again, we shall not push the amendment to a vote. Among other things, the Minister is responsible for the arts. He should reiterate the reliance of the arts in Scotland on local authority contributions.
There is a considerable variation in local authority provision, which may reflect the varying level of commitment. That was brought out in Committee and a letter was frequently quoted from the chairman of the Arts Council in Scotland, Gerald Elliot. He was anxious about the varying degree of commitment to the arts by local authorities.
We wish to learn what the Government feel about a 1p mandatory rate. They are singularly unenthusiastic to accept responsibility for rate increases, no matter how responsible they are for those increases because of their parsimonious attitude in the rate support grant settlement. If they wish local authorities to support the arts, they must consider other means of finance. If local authorities did not have to take the blame for charging a 1p rate they might be more imaginative in spending the money to support the arts.
The major authorities support the national companies fairly consistently. The fringe groups are most vulnerable to major cuts. The Scottish organisation for the promotion of dance and other groups whose contribution to Scotland's cultural activities should not be measured by their size have all made representations. A mandatory rate might insulate those groups from the worst excesses of inflation. It might equalise the burden between authorities, although it is a rough and ready method.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) said that there was a need to readjust the RSG between authorities. The proposal would mitigate the problems. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) could not tell us how the adjustments could be made to protect Arts Council activities and other artistic pursuits.
Will the Minister clarify the provisions in new clause 2? Paragraph (a) states:
by way of grant towards expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by a district council".
We know that the relationship between district councils and the regions has not always been as happy as it might have been. One of the major Scottish artistic events of the year is the Edinburgh Festival. I imagine that the Lothian region, which I expect will be constituted after the elections on Thursday in much the same way as it is now, would be reluctant to provide money that the Edinburgh district council ought to be finding for the support of certain artistic activities.
9.15 pm
I recognise that hitherto the relationship in respect of the arts between Edinburgh district and Lothian region has been one of the few areas where there has been a measure of successful co-operation, certainly to the extent that one has been able to complement the other. However, there

could be some difficulty if local authorities were not of one mind on the arts. I should therefore welcome some clarification in respect of subsection (1)(a) of new clause 2.
We welcome contributions to voluntary organisations. We recognise that the Minister is really aiming at the fringe groups. The voluntary organisations often receive grants on a localised basis. I remember some of my colleagues from the Ayrshire constituencies talking about the support given to the Borderline Theatre Group, based in Ayrshire, and which attracts much support. That theatre group might have some difficulty attracting support if a greater pressure were placed on district councils without any great compulsion placed on the Strathclyde region. We recognise that the voluntary sector is accounted for. We therefore hope that the Minister will clarify subsection (1)(a) and the relationship between a region and a district.
Some concern was expressed in Committee about "the other arts" that are mentioned at the end of subsection (1)(b). I presume that means the graphic arts. I hope that local authorities will not find themselves in difficulty if they wish to support any other form of art apart from the performing arts. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point and give an assurance that the graphic arts as well as the performing arts will be covered.
We do not seek to divide the House on our amendment. We recognise that the technical amendments to which the Minister referred are perhaps not the most satisfactory way of dealing with the amending of the original clause. To an extent, we must be thankful for small mercies. The Minister has shown some flexibility here and has moved away from the strong and bureaucratic approach which the initial draft of the Bill suggested.
There is some concurrency that is consistent with the requirements of a special situation in Scotland. We therefore give a cautious welcome—no more than that—to new clause 2. We hope that in the not too distant future subsequent legislation will return to a consideration of the financing of the arts. I recognise that at the moment the proposal in amendment No. 31 is still in embryonic form, but we hope that it may provide local authorities with an opportunity to look at the funding of and expenditure on the arts in a more relaxed manner.
We recognise that by new clause 2 the districts will not have to shoulder the burden of support for the arts. We are grateful to that extent. We only hope that the Minister will express the encouragement and support that all the Scottish regions require. Not all of them are generous in support of the arts. It varies from one to the other. I hope that the Minister will tell the Scottish regions that they should be spending money on the arts. The pursuit of recreation and leisure is of prime importance, both as a source of employment and to provide those out of work with the much-needed activities, at a reasonable cost, that ought to be made available to them to fill the time that they have through no fault of their own. We do not wish to push new clause 2 or amendment No. 31 to a vote but we should be interested in the Minister's response to the points that we have made.

Mr. McQuarrie: I wish to raise two specific points on new clause 2. Subsection (1)(b) uses the words
by way of grant or loan towards expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by a voluntary organisation or other person, not being a local authority.
Clause 20, on page 17 of the Bill, says:


In section 55 of the 1973 Act (which empowers a regional, islands or district council to contribute towards the expenses etc. of a community council in their area), the word 'Regional', shall cease to have effect.
New clause 2 refers to a
voluntary organisation … not being a local authority".
I contend that the community council is a voluntary organisation. Athough it is elected in its village area, the members of the community council do not enjoy any income, salary or expenses, or anything for loss of earnings. Is there an anomaly in the new clause? Could not the words "voluntary organisation" be taken as referring to community councils?
At present, regional councils subscribe to the funds of community councils, albeit in many cases only in small part. Can voluntary organisations be construed as including community councils? The latter are not local authorities in the strict sense of the word.
Sound voluntary organisations provide for the arts, and provide music and entertainment for the areas that they represent. In general they look after the welfare of the community. Therefore, I contend that if we accept new clause 2 the Minister should delete clause 20 and leave the power with the regional councils to make donations to community councils.
My second point is in connection with subsection (2) of the new clause. I should like to ask the Minister to clarify what he said about a harbour. I have in my constituency a boat haven called the Cairnbull boat haven. For many years it was the harbour for the herring fishing vessels of Inverallochy and Cairnbull in my constituency. The boat haven has fallen into a state of disrepair and requires money to be spent on it. There is no organisation in law empowered to be able to provide the necessary funds to put it into a state of order. Unfortunately, under the terms of the trust for the boat haven, if it falls into a state of disrepair, it goes back to the trustees. That would be sad in a small village such as Cairnbull, which has a great reputation over many centuries as a good herring fishing village. In this instance, the council will have the power to give money to put this boat harbour into order.
I hope that the Minister will reply to these two points when he replies.

Mr. McKelvey: I shall be brief. I welcome the new clause, if only because it proves that our arguments in Committee were based on common sense. In Committee the Government were so hell-bent on ending concurrency that their exuberance often overcame common sense.
I welcome the clause, because it gives regional councils the opportunity to contribute to the cultural, sporting and social activities and facilities which we all hope to enjoy, but I hope that the Minister will explain how all that will be paid for. After all, some regions are bound to be nervous about spending money on those items lest it be considered that they had acted unreasonably in the view of the Secretary of State.
It would therefore seem logical for the Government to give serious consideration to amendment No. 31, which would allow a 1 per cent. rate to cover that expenditure. That would not only encourage regional councils to act within their discretion on this form of payments, but would ensure that they had the money to spend on the purposes provided in the new clause.
I hope that the Minister will tell us why amendment No. 31 is not acceptable, and how he will convince the various regional councils that if they act in accordance with new

clause 2 and make the money available they can safely spend that money without incurring the wrath of the Secretary of State or the kind of action that has been taken against Lothian regional council.

Sir Hector Monro: I was not a member of the Standing Committee, and therefore I was not deeply involved in the debates there. However, on Second Reading I raised queries about the policy in Stodart of giving responsibility for sport to the districts and taking it away from the regions. So far, by and large, the region has had responsibility, because of the availability of education authority sports facilities such as playing fields, sports halls, swimming pools, and so on. However, that does not mean that certain district councils, such as Annandale and Eskdale, have not been extremely active and provided excellent facilities.
In new clause 2 my hon. Friend has struck a balance which, in the long run, may be the best, except of course when it comes to the problem of finance. I suspect that hard-pressed authorities will be reluctant to help other authorities, whether regions or districts, to provide facilities for which they are basically responsible.
9.30 pm
In his other capacity as Minister with responsibility for sport in Scotland, my hon. Friend will have been pleased at the development of local sports councils over recent years. They have fitted in with the district councils and, in some circumstances, the regional councils, to assist the development of sport, not only in the provision of facilities, but, more importantly, in the organisation of administration, helping with coaching and in a hundred other ways in which voluntary sport works in this country.
New clause 2 will enable the regional councils to assist the districts to continue the development of sport locally. That is probably the best compromise that the Minister could propose to the House. Naturally, I shall not be completely convinced until we see the structure work in practice. That brings us back to the financial issue.
In this new approach we must highlight the warmth of encouragement and confidence that we give to the voluntary side of sport in this country. It can manage its facilities extremely well. All that it needs is a little pump priming from the Sports Council or from the local authorities. In that way we are far more likely to develop in the right direction. We must use the motto of the Sports Council, "Sports for all". That means sport for everybody, from youngsters right through to the top. Therefore, I support my hon. Friend in his new clause 2. I hope that in the long run the structure that he proposes will work satisfactorily.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I was not on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill. However, I congratulate my hon. Friends on raising this matter in Committee and on bringing pressure on the Government to bring forward this amendment. It certainly clarifies the role and power of regional councils in assisting sport, leisure, recreation and the arts. It is appropriate that the Under-Secretary should speak by w ay of introduction, and I hope that he will reply to the debate. He is the Minister with responsibility not just for industry and education in Scotland, which he is trying his best to wreck, but also for sport and for the arts in Scotland. Wearing the latter two caps his record is no better than it is on industry and education.
The Minister's weekend statement, in which he cast doubts upon the possibility of Scotland's participation in the World Cup, seemed to be at variance with that of the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for Sport at the Department of the Environment, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) who explicitly said in a reply to me just a matter of weeks ago that he was against a boycott. For the Minister to give off-the-cuff statements, apparently without any authority, is a great disservice to Scotland's international football team. However, perhaps we should not be all that surprised when we consider his lack of service to sport in general.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: It is probably not necessary to clarify this point for anyone in Britain other than the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). However, I think that I should do so, because he has raised the point. There is no question of United Kingdom teams boycotting the World Cup in Spain. There is no comparison between the World Cup in Spain and the Olympic Games in Moscow, where Russia, the host country, had created the difficulties by its attack on Afghanistan. The extremely obvious point that I was making on Saturday was that if hostilities between the United Kingdom and Argentina are continuing during the World Cup, in my view it would be impossible for any United Kingdom team to meet the Argentine in a football match in Spain. That is a perfectly straightforward and simple fact which even the hon. Gentleman should have no difficulty, not only in grasping but in agreeing with.

Mr. Canavan: Our argument is with the Argentine junta, not with the Argentine football team. The Minister's statement seemed to be at variance with the statement of his colleague at the Department of the Environment.

Sir Hector Monro: rose——

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was sacked from the job as Minister with responsibility for sport.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now return to the amendment.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is a stupid old fool.

Mr. Canavan: I am not a stupid old fool. The hon. Member for Dumfries, who was sacked and given a knighthood as some phoney reward for his services to a discredited Prime Minister, must be a silly old fool ever to have been a member of that Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has even less to do with the amendment.

Mr. Canavan: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by a sacked Minister and another incompetent Minister with responsibility for sport, the Minister's record of giving financial support to sport in Scotland is no better than his failure rate in giving financial support to Scottish education and industry. His deplorable record on Hampden Park, which was a project on which the regional council and the district council—[Interruption.]——

Sir Hector Monro: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Canavan: It has. The hon. Gentleman is showing his ignorance by saying that, because it was a tripartite

project involving Strathclyde regional council, Glasgow district council and the Minister. When the Minister withdrew his commitment to give financial support the project collapsed and Scotland was left with a national stadium which is more like a gigantic public lavatory than a stadium of which the nation can be proud. The Minister should take responsibility for that, and I hope that the purpose of this amendment is not simply to pass the buck to Strathclyde regional council or any other regional council and leave it to provide financial support for either sport or the arts.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: rose——

Mr. Canavan: I give way to the Minister who created the Hampden Park fiasco.

Mr. Fletcher: For the clarification of anyone who may be in doubt following the hon. Gentleman's remark about the Hampden Park episode, I should say that the first party to withdraw was Glasgow district council. The second party to withdraw was a majority of the premier division football clubs in Scotland. Only after that did the Government feel that it was no part of our purpose to force a stadium on to Scottish football at a time when it seemed most reluctant to accept it.

Mr. Canavan: The truth is that if the Minister had given more encouragement to Glasgow district council, to Strathclyde regional council and to the Scottish football authorities we might have had a chance of a national football stadium of which we could have been proud instead of the national disgrace that we now have. The Minister cannot be allowed off the hook on this matter, because he was mainly responsible for the project and his withdrawal of a firm commitment on the part of the Government was mainly responsible for the collapse. I hope that he will not use this amendment simply to require local authorities to provide the necessary financial support. The Minister's record of support for the arts is no better than his record of support for sport.
A project in my constituency is threatened as a direct result of Government policy. It is the sort of project that comes under the terms of this amendment. I refer to the MacRoberts Arts Centre at Stirling university. The university is being hit by the educational policies of the Government and, despite representations made by local Members of Parliament, including myself, it seems as though we are talking to a stone wall.
If we had the backing of the Scottish Office perhaps we should be able to do something more for the University of Stirling, but unfortunately the Minister who is responsible for education in Scotland has said virtually nothing. He did not even give us the backing that we expected when we went to see the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
A recent bulletin of the Scottish Arts Council describes some of the activities of the MacRobert Arts Centre. For the year ended March 1981, the centre presented 370 performances of 197 different events which were attended by 115,320 people. Productions included the first performance by the Scottish Theatre Company of "Let Wives Tak Tent" and also the opening night of "Civilians". Other visiting theatre companies included Perth Theatre, 7:84 Scotland, Wildcat and the New Shakespeare Company and there have also been visits by D'Oyly Carte and Scottish Opera, which played to near-capacity audiences.
Because of Government cutbacks to the Arts Council and the Scottish Arts Council, D'Oyly Carte, for example, has, I understand, lost its grant. Will it now be left, under the terms of the legislation, to local authorities to step in to make some sort of recompense for the drastic cutbacks imposed by the Government, who refused to give the Arts Council and the Scottish Arts Council a big enough budget?
The MacRobert centre is funded by a grant from the Scottish Arts Council and it received £84,270 for the year ended March 1981. The University of Stirling gave £67,000 and Scottish local authorities, particularly two local ones in which the MacRobert arts centre is situated—the Central region and Stirling district—and other Scottish local authorities that contributed, gave a total of £21,953. Total attendances at all events were 115,320.
Can the Minister give us some clarification on whether he is expecting local authorities, for example the Central regional council, to use their powers under the Bill simply to use up more and more of their money to make up for the inadequacies of the Government? Considering the lack of rate support grant and the general lack of financial support from the Government to local authorities, I am sure that the regional council will be as generous as possible. Nevertheless, the Government cannot be allowed to escape from their responsibilities either, or the Minister, instead of being the Minister with responsibility for sport and for arts in Scotland, will be in danger of ending up being branded as an unsporting Philistine.

Mr. Maclennan: In the debate on clause 12 in Committee the Opposition, in the person of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), made a strong case for saying that responsibility for the arts ought to remain squarely with both the regions and districts. The hon. Gentleman deployed the case against the arrangements in the Bill with considerable cogency. In doing so he rehearsed the fear expressed by, among others, Mr. Gerald Elliot, the chairman of the Arts Council in Scotland, that removing responsibility for the arts from regional councils would almost certainly lead to the danger of a reduction in the funding of the arts by local authorities.
9.45 pm
Therefore, I am surprised that the official Opposition have expressed such support for new clause 2, which seems to fall short of the proposals made by the hon. Member for Garscadden in Committee. The new clause is merely an enabling clause, which underlines what the Minister made clear in Committee, which is that it was hoped that regional councils would consider continuing the funding of the arts. I understand that he did not believe that the Bill prevented them from doing so.

Mr. O'Neill: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, because this is the first time that he has shown any interest in this matter. He did not attend any sitting of the Committee and did not table an amendment to clear up the deficiencies in the clause that he is attacking. Therefore, I do not see why he should choose to attack the official Opposition.

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman's interventions are to be abusive I shall be more scant in the number of occasions on which I give way to him and his Front Bench colleagues.
I wish to see the Bill come through the Report stage with a greater clarification of the Government's intention than is likely to follow from the remarks of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), who did little more than welcome new clause 2. The new clause is solely permissive and does not remove the anxieties that have been expressed in Scotland, and were well deployed by the hon. Member for Garscadden, about the predicament of the arts.
Only about 10 per cent. of the funding of the arts and other leisure and recreational activities came from the regions under the old dispensation, but the position was thought to be sufficiently serious for representations to be made by all those in Scotland who are concerned about these matters. The then Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), pointed out fairly that discussions would have to take place with the local authorities about adjustments in the rate support grant, because he saw no reason why the total net expenditure should change as a result of the inclusion of clause 12.
In opening the debate on new clause 2 the Minister was not able to tell us much about the Government's intentions in that respect. I hope that he will do so in his reply, because there is considerable concern, particularly in the regions with small, impecunious district councils, that they may find it difficult to make good from their smaller rate base the shortfall in expenditure on leisure and recreation facilities, which have hitherto been the responsibility of the regions.
Can the Minister say what discussions have been held with CoSLA on these matters, and will he give an assurance that when the rate support grant for 1983–84 is calculated there will be no less money available and that proper allowance will be made for inflation, to ensure that the attempt partially to do away with concurrency of functions does not lead to a reduction in the funding of the arts, sport, leisure and recreation?

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I should like to reply by referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill). I do not wish to suggest that the Government's view of the matter following the Committee stage and the representations that were made to us by a number of bodies, including the Scottish Arts Council, is anything other than a move towards meeting the opinion and concern that were expressed by Opposition Members and by those other bodies.
We had second thoughts about the matter following the strength of the representation. There is no need for me to suggest otherwise. Among other things, our attention was drawn to the important contribution from the regions in recent years to the arts in Scotland. I have a few figures that might help to illustrate the point. In 1980–81 the Scottish National Orchestra received almost 16 per cent. of its grant from local authorities and almost 42 per cent. from the Government through the Scottish Arts Council Scottish Opera received 3·7 per cent. of its grant from local authorities and almost 62 per cent. from the Scottish Arts Council. The local authorities made a smaller contribution, but it was an important and significant contribution to the arts in Scotland.
Although the Bill is aimed at ending concurrency of powers, we did not take such a dogmatic view of the arrangements that we wished to end contributions by the


regions. Therefore, new clause 2 is aimed entirely at enabling the regions to continue to support the arts in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire referred to funding in future. The central issue is whether the rate support grant distribution formula should be adjusted to reflect the change of responsibility. That issue will require discussion in the working party on local government finance, prior to making up the 1983–84 settlement. It will be necessary to have regard to all the changes embodied in the Bill, of which leisure and recreation is only one. The hon. Gentleman's point is taken.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister concede that we are discussing an extremely complicated issue, which is the readjustment of the rate support grant to take account of what might be a relatively small amount? Is there not a danger that that relatively small amount will be lost in the negotiations? Is the Minister confident that his officials will be able to keep track of it and ensure that the local authorities are able to continue to accept the figures that are being suggested? Has there been any sign that the local authorities are conscious of the difficulties that they may have to face?

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the local authorities are aware of that. I am also sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the RSG settlement is a complicated matter, made up of many items, including small items that must be taken into account. Therefore, I do not believe that there is anything different or unusual in asking the people responsible to take into account the items to which we are referring this evening.
The arts in Scotland depend heavily on public subscription. It is common knowledge that the expansion of the arts and leisure activities in Scotland, although we have been able to maintain considerable funding through the Scottish Arts Council and the Scottish Sport Council, even at a time of financial restraint, will require to depend more and more on the private sector and on attracting funds from the many businesses that trade in and around Scotland.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire raised the question of the mandatory rate with regard to amendment No. 31. We considered whether we could accept the spirit of the amendment, which we take to be that a council should be statutorily obliged to levy rates of a given amount that can be spent in fulfilling their duties under subsection (1) of clause 12. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is contrary to the practice that no part of a rate is allocated by statute for particular purposes. It would be unwarranted interference in the affairs of local government. I am sure that he appreciates that the last thing that the Government want to do is interfere in local government affairs in this or any other respect.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire also referred to paragraph (b) of new clause 2. He asked about the inclusion of the graphic arts. We specifically refer to the need to
promote music, theatre, opera, ballet and the other arts
because, among the representations that we received, anxiety was expressed about the Scottish National Opera,

the Scottish Ballet and others. The graphic arts are in no way excluded. They are referred to in the reference to "the other arts".
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) referred to the difficulties of community councils and asked whether they were voluntary organisations. I do not think so. They are set up by statute under local government legislation. They would not, therefore, be referred to as voluntary organisations in that sense. They are part of the local government structure and are therefore not necessarily excluded by the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East also referred to Cairnbulg boat haven. There is nothing in the Bill or the amendments that would prevent local authorities from helping. Indeed, provision is made for local authorities to spend resources to develop leisure facilities of that kind. The only objection that I can think of is if a trust deed affecting Cairnbulg prohibited a public body from taking part. The trust deed might have to be amended, if the local authority—Grampian region or the district council—wished to make a contribution to develop the harbour. That would be a normal matter for the trustees on the one hand and a local authority on the other to take into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) reminded the House that regional councils have an educational responsibility. I use the word in the broadest sense. He also reminded us that the distinction between leisure and recreation is not precise. Hence the powers in the Bill to allow regions to continue to participate in the type of activities that we are discussing. The same applies to sports activities.
I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said about the need to encourage voluntary efforts, especially through the Sports Council, and the encouragement that local authorities can give. As my hon. Friend knows from his experience in these matters, a small sum of money from a local authority for a voluntary effort in sport or recreation can go a long way towards satisfying the needs of a local community, especially a rural one. I am conscious of my hon. Friend's point.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) asked how the region is to pay for its contribution and referred to what he described as the wrath of the Secretary of State in matters affecting local authority expenditure. He need have no fear, nor need any local authority that presents its case for reasonable expenditure, because that is what we are dealing with in these and other respects.
Therefore, in considering the matters that we have further discussed today, I hope that the House will support the new clause and the other Government proposals before us.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

New clause 3

APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES

In the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, after subsection (5) of section 57 (which governs the appointment of committees), there shall be inserted the following subsection:
'(b) In appointing a committee under subsection (1)(a) above the authority shall have regard to the qualifications of those members appointed and to the composition of the authority.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government amendments Nos. 90 to 92.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The principle of the new clause is simply that after a democratic election has taken place the rights of Opposition parties should be protected and the composition of committees should reflect as far as possible the composition of the council concerned. In short, majority parties should not act as though minority parties in opposition did not exist by excluding them from committees.
The new clause does not apply in three sets of circumstances. First, it does not apply to policy and resources committees, because they are advisory committees and differ from others in certain respects. Secondly, it cannot apply to the majority where the majority of councillors are independents because it would not be possible to resolve what would or would not be representative. Thirdly, it does not apply to sub-committees.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has described three sets of circumstances in which the new clause would not apply. Where are those exclusions provided for in the new clause? My understanding of the new clause may be deficient, but I certainly cannot see how all those exclusions are covered.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause is drafted in such a way that it does not cover those three sets of circumstances, but it most certainly covers circumstances in which a council deliberately excludes minority parties when appointing a committee.

Mr. Foulkes: rose——

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. I must continue. The clause is drafted in such a way that it does not cover those three sets of circumstances.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No.
In at least one council in Scotland that has attracted public attention, when appointing a committee—for instance, the housing committee—to exercise power on behalf of the full council, Kirkcaldy district council did not allow any councillors from opposition parties to be appointed.
It is highly desirable that the rights of minority parties should be recognised. Kirkcaldy district council consisted of 23 Labour councillors, one Communist, three Conservatives, four Scottish National Party members, two from the ratepayers, two independents and one Liberal, but there were no opposition councillors at all on the housing committee.
In February last year, in the Standing Committee on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, the Under-Secretary of State said:
I believe that the position in this one authority is frankly unacceptable to the House, that it is a scandal and that we cannot accept it. The issues raised go far beyond party politics. It is basic to democracy that oppositions and minority groups should have rights. That is in the interests of all political parties."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 24 February 1981; c. 644.]
The Under-Secretary was not alone in expressing that view. I have here a statement from the Dundee Courier in which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay)—and I have given him notice that I would raise this matter—expressed himself on 9 May 1980. He said of the situation in the district council that it was
a departure from the democratic process in the House of Commons, which is regarded throughout the world as the Mother of Parliaments. It is laid down quite clearly that membership of committees must accurately reflect membership of the bodies in the House. The move by the district council brings us somewhat nearer to the type of dictatorship we fought during the last war.
He went on to say:
Not only do they take the chairmanships and memberships but even dictate who the opposition spokesmen will be. That is not the kind of democracy that I would like to be a party to. I hope that commonsense will enventually prevail.
In fairness, I should mention that the position of that particular council may well be changing, but there have been other councils in Scotland where the representation on committees has been unfair and unrepresentative. It seems that the rights of minorities should be protected. After all, if opposition parties are not allowed representation on committees not only are they denied freedom of expression but they will be unable effectively to represent the interests of their constituents.
Above all, the principle that there should be freedom of expression was expressed very well by John Stuart Mill when he said words to the effect that if all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one man than he would be in silencing mankind.
I hope that the Minister will look at this problem in conjunction, if necessary, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and that the rights of oppositions and minorities will be properly protected.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. About an hour ago it was mentioned on television that one of the British ships, HMS "Sheffield", had been destroyed in the South Atlantic. Has the Prime Minister indicated whether she intends coming to the House tonight to explain precisely what happened?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As soon as there is any such information it will be given to the House.

Mr. Leo Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While it may be that such information will be given in due course, the alarm, concern and distress that exist as a consequence of the massive folly that is occurring demand that there should be an immediate statement in the House. Surely it is necessary that the Prime Minister should come to the House and tell us precisely what has occurred, so that the House can give a firm indication of the need for a cessation of hostilities on the initiative of this Government and the need for far more urgent attempts to negotiate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure the observations of the hon. Gentleman will be noted.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you will agree that the Government have the power to do everything. They have the power to interrupt business, suspend business, promote new business. I put it to you that the sinking of HMS "Sheffield" is so serious, is such a dramatic and tragic event, that hon. Members on both sides of the House really want to hear a statement from the Ministry.
As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the sinking was announced on television at 9 o'clock by the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, it must know the facts. Members are entitled to hear those facts without waiting until tomorrow, when the situation will probably have worsened. I think that you might convey this message to the proper quarters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The message has been conveyed.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House is present. He understands the feelings of the House and the necessity to make a statement before the House adjourns. It would be almost a contempt of the House for us to adjourn tonight without a statement being made. Surely we do not have to wait to read the newspapers or listen to the news in the morning. We require the Leader of the House to tell us as quickly as possible when the Defence Minister is going to be at the Dispatch Box, and we certainly expect a statement tonight.

Mr. John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it would be a great mistake if the House were to panic. This great and ancient nation has been through many wars and struggles and it does not need a debate and a statement every five minutes because a ship has been sunk. Let us back those who are fighting and not let them down by panicking here.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The loss of HMS "Sheffield" and recent events reported from the Falklands very properly excite the deep concern of the House. Throughout the whole of the Falklands episode the Government have sought to keep the House informed in as comprehensive a fashion as possible for the convenience of the House. The situation concerning the loss of the "Sheffield" is still not totally clarified, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said that he wishes to make a statement first thing after Questions tomorrow, I am certain that he will then be in a position——

Mr. Winnick: We must have it now.

Mr. Biffen: —to give the House the most up-to-date information that is available, which is consistent with the tradition of informing the House as well as having regard to sheer practicalities.

Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will not adjourn in the near future, as those of us debating the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill know only too well. There will be plenty of time tonight and early tomorrow morning for a statement to be made as we

continue to consider the Bill. I am sure that all those who are considering it would more than welcome the intervention of the Secretary of State for Defence in our proceedings to make the appropriate statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's observations have been duly noted by the Leader of the House. We are now dealing with new clause 3.

Mr. Abse: Further to the statement made by the Leader of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Individual Members of Parliament, like the rest of the public, are given information of a grave event over the television that perhaps will affect the lives of hundreds of our young Service men. Obviously there is knowledge in possession of the Ministry of Defence. The Leader of the House has said that tomorrow is the time for a statement, but statements can be made by the BBC and the press can make comments tonight. The House has the responsibility of safeguarding the lives of our young men. We have heard the Government's response. What possible condition exists to justify the right hon. Gentleman's statement that tomorrow is the day to make a statement and not tonight when we are all assembled and when the nation expects a statement from a Minister, so that we all know who is responsible, what is to occur and what fresh initiative will take place before further lives are lost?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that none of these matters is for the Chair.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is not a matter of panicking. When the Conservative Party won the last general election it stated in its manifesto that the House and no other body should be at the centre of the nation's affairs. For too long during this "episode", as the Leader of the House describes it, other institutions such as the television have been at the centre and the House has been peripheral to what is going on. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) has said, the business of the House has been arranged tonight to go on for quite a long time. The Leader of the House, on reflection, might agree that to defer a statement until tomorrow morning is unnecessary. I am not asking for an immediate statement now, but it must be possible for a Minister to come to the House before midnight to inform the House, as the Government are pledged to inform it in statement after statement, of the latest situation as the Government know it. If they do not do that, they will be going back on constant pledges from the Dispatch Box to keep the House at the centre of this information and not to let people pick it up from television, newspapers and other such organs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: None of those matters is for the Chair.

Mr. Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am as concerned as anyone about matters of local government in Scotland, but at a time when, quite apart from the number of Argentines who lost their lives yesterday, news has now come through that a substantial number of British Service men must have lost their lives, it is quite inappropriate for the House to continue to debate affairs such as recreational, sporting, cultural and social facilities in Scotland or the peculiarities


of the composition of certain committees of a local district council in Kirkcaldy. Rather than proceed with the debate in this type of atmosphere, I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the house should adjourn until such such time as the Prime Minister comes to make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a precedent—there must be many of them. A few years ago after a bomb attack and danger to a member of the Royal Family when a policeman was injured, the Minister concerned came before the House and interrupted a debate at which I was present to make a statement about what had happened. Having seen one of the news reports tonight, I know that the spokesman for the Ministry of Defence made a public statement on this matter and was televised doing so. As Ministers are in charge, and as the Prime Minister said today that there has been political control over the task force, would it not be appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to come before the House to answer for what has happened and to give us a statement and information.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that all these matters have been noted by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is really not acceptable that the Leader of the House should abuse his inexperience in his present office not to fulfil his responsibilities to the House of Commons. There has been a disaster in the South Atlantic engineered by him and his party colleagues, and the least he can do in fulfilment of his duties to the House of Commons is to summon his senior colleagues to explain the present position at the Government Front Bench. May I say in addendum that it would also be necessary for the leaders of my party to attend that post mortem since they were originally party to this whole lunatic exercise in the South Atlantic.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Our city of Sheffield has great contacts with this particular ship. I should like to advance what my colleagues have said and ask that the House be adjourned, and that the Prime Minister should come here and give us whatever news there is. It is disgraceful that we should have to learn from outside what is happening when we have been elected to come to the House and learn whatever is happening. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister to come to the House and tell us what has happened to that ship.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have the Leader of the House present and we are debating another matter.

Sir John Eden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I respectfully appeal to hon. Members on the Opposition Benches for a moment of calm? Is it not absolutely clear that in a military engagement it is inescapable that there will be casualties on both sides?
Is it not also impossible for a campaign of that nature to be conducted by question and answer across the Floor of the House? Would it not be much more appropriate for us to proceed with the normal business of the House so that a considered statement can be made in the House tomorrow?

Mr. Biffen: I very much wish to assist the House in making progress this evening in the way in which it feels

most congenial and orderly. I appreciate that in all parts of the House there is deep concern over the recent news. There is great anxiety that the matter should be fully ventilated in the Chamber. Some feel that it must happen this evening. I believe that the majority feel that the most appropriate occasion would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to make a comprehensive statement tomorrow afternoon with all the available information that he will then have. I believe that chat would be a gesture consistent with the traditions of the House and with the nature of the situation.
I hope that those who feel that it is necessary for a statement to be secured this evening will realise that there are good, sound arguments for believing that the House would be better served by having a statement tomorrow when the additional information will be available.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Allan Stewart.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the matter now. We are debating another matter and I have called Mr. Allan Stewart.

Mr. Allan Stewart: With new clause 3 we are considering Government amendments Nos. 90 to 92. These amendments bear on the operation of the option now to be available to councillors to choose between the receipt of financial loss allowance and attendance allowances——

Mr. McKelvey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the House to continue to debate Scottish affairs when we cannot apply our full minds to the business? It is grossly unfair to expect Ministers to do justice to the job. It is equally unfair to expect the Opposition to argue the important points that we wish to deal with. It is not a case of being hysterically anti-British or anti-Scottish. Nor is it terribly British or Scottish to continue to debate matters that are of less importance than what is happening in the South Atlantic. If we continue it will be grossly misunderstandood by the friends and relatives of those who may have died.

Mr. Biffen: It is important for the House to proceed in as good tempered a fashion as possible. My arguments have not been entirely persuasive to a certain section of the House. Minorities have rights as well as those who, I believe, constitute the majority. If it will help, I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the opinions expressed in the hope that he might be able to come to the House for what I am sure will be understood to be a brief holding statement, since the main statement must take place—[Interruption.] I am trying to help and to accommodate what I believe are genuine feelings. It might be as well if there were in the Chamber a degree of gravity consistent with the situation.
I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the sentiments expressed, in the hope that he will come to the House before very long.

Mr. Allan Stewart: With new clause 3 we are considering Government amendments Nos. 90 to 92. These amendments bear on the operation of the option that is now to be available to councillors to choose between the receipt of financial loss allowance and attendance allowance for the performance of an approved duty—


[Interruption]. We are indebted to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), and I am delighted that he is present.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but I am having great difficulty in hearing what the Minister is saying. As on this occasion he is referring to me, it would be helpful if I heard him. Perhaps we can just wait a few moments, or perhaps he can speak up.

Mr. Home Robertson: Or, better still, adjourn the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that we shall have no difficulty in hearing the Minister.

Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire can hear me now. I was saying that the House is indebted to him for his suggestion——

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Minister to go back to the beginning of his remarks, because it has been extremely difficult to follow him? It would do justice to his case if he were to start at the beginning of his remarks, because we would then be able to follow the argument.

Mr. Stewart: I am happy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to do so. I was saying that, with new clause 3, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), we are considering Government amendments Nos. 90 to 92. I shall begin by referring to those amendments before dealing with new clause 3.
These amendments bear on the operation of the option now to be available to councillors to choose between the receipt of financial loss allowance and attendance allowance for the performance of an approved duty. As I said, we are indebted to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire for his suggestion in Committee that the detailed administrative arrangements currently set out in subsections (2) to (6) of new section 45A of the 1973 Act as introduced by clause 52 should be prescribed otherwise than in primary legislation. The provision in its present form follows the corresponding English legislation in the 1980 Act and the detailed administrative procedures prescribed are basically to facilitate taxation arrangements.
We have, however, looked at this carefully in the light of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire's suggestion, and we have concluded that there is no good reason why this sort of administrative detail should not be dealt with by regulations. The amendments now before the House give effect to that. It will be noted that there is already a power in section 50 of the 1973 Act to enable my right hon. Friend to make any necessary regulations.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that the amendments give an added flexibility to the operation of the clause and will, of course, avoid the need to amend primary legislation if, for example, the detailed provisions in subsection (2) to (6) should become obsolete. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West on raising an important topic in new clause 3 and on the way in which he moved it. The topic

is a general one—the rights of minorities to representation on committees in Scottish local authorities. As my hon. Friend said, public attention was focused on the issue by what happened in one district council, where the incoming ruling group excluded minority parties from major committees.
My hon. Friend quoted not only myself but the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) as saying how deplorable that action was. I am sure that that was the view of the House. This House depends on representation and reasonable speaking rights for minorities. Therefore, there is no doubt about the public concern over what happened in Kirkcaldy.
It is, however, a relatively isolated incident. I can quote from my own regional authority. A number of hon. Members from the Strathclyde region are present. I know that the Labour group in Strathclyde has been meticulous in ensuring representation of and information to the minority parties. Therefore, I do not think that we are considering a major problem that affects local authorities as a whole.
10.30 pm
However, my hon. Friend has raised a major point of principle and one of public concern. I am happy to confirm acceptance of his suggestion that we should consider this with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We have drawn the matter to its attention and are awaiting its reactions. On the basis of that assurance, and my full sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of principle, I hope that he will feel able to seek to withdraw new clause 3.

Mr. Maxton: I know that many of us on the Labour Benches do not feel much like continuing the debate. Many of us feel with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) that we should have adjourned until the statement had been made. However, as we have decided to continue, then continue we must. The democratic process of examining new clauses and putting points that have to be made on Government amendments still has to go on.
In discussing new clause 3, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and the Minister were wrong about Strathclyde region with regard to one committee. Like Glasgow district council, the Strathclyde region, although allowing minority groups on most committees, does not allow the general representation clause to be carried through on the policy committee. That committee is clearly in the hands of the Labour controlling group and no other party has a say. That is the position that the Cabinet is in. The policy committee decides the policy for the region as a whole. It ought to be entirely in the hands of the controlling party. Other parties should not be allowed representation on that committee. In that case, the Labour-controlled Strathclyde council is right.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West does not allow for that in his new clause. In essence, it says that any committee must be represented in the way that he is suggesting. Therefore, although I have some sympathy for the general point that he is making—that committee should have representation from all parties—I do not think that his new clause, as worded, is sufficient. It must take account of policy committees that are rightly in the hands of the controlling party.

Mr. Bruce Milian: Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 92 have been tabled in response to


representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). I congratulate him on them, because the provisions in the amendment are much simpler and more flexible. That is desirable, so there is no difference between the two sides of the House on these amendments.
I understand what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) seeks to do in new clause 3. I shall not go into its merits because, again, there is little argument between the two sides of the House. Nevertheless, I am not enthusiastic about putting restrictions in a local government Bill on how local authorities should behave over the appointment of their committees.
The Minister has fairly said that in the vast majority of cases there is no problem at the moment. I am not keen on disturbing that just because it is felt that in a particular case or area something has happened that is not completely desirable. I shall not go into that in detail because, as the Minister said, there will be discussions with CoSLA. Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, I believe that the clause is defective. In my view, it does not do what he said it does.
However, I shall say no more, particularly as our attention has been diverted by other matters. If there is to be consultation, no doubt the Minister will tell us what it has produced, and we can then consider the matter. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In view of the Minister's assurance, I shall be happy to seek to withdraw the new clause. However, I wish to point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that what he said is covered by section 57(1)(a) of the 1973 Act, and that the new clause does not cover policy and resources committees.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

DOGS CONTROL

'Each island and district council shall have powers to pass bye-laws for the specific purpose of appointing persons or firms with acceptable qualifications who will undertake the duties of catching and removing to a compound stray dogs or dogs causing a nuisance or annoyance to the ratepayers, and subject to section 43(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1961 the costs of such services shall be met by an increase in the amount of duties levied in respect of dog licences by the local authority. No increase shall be made on the licences for guide dogs, work dogs, and dogs owned by persons over the age of sixty years.'.—[McQuarrie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McQuarrie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I add my view to those aired by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey), that those of us from Scotland have no stomach for further discussion of the Bill at this time. However, as we have been assured by the Leader of the House that the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House this evening to make a statement, it is only fair to endeavour to proceed, in spite of the fact that there is nothing less important on our minds than the Local

Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill, and the amendments and new clauses to it. So until the Minister arrives, it is only fair that the House should endeavour to continue.
New clause 4 stands in my name and is supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It gives each island and district council
powers to pass by-laws for the specific purpose of appointing persons or firms with acceptable qualifications who will undertake the duties of catching and removing to a compound stray dogs or dogs causing a nuisance or annoyance to the ratepayers, and subject to section 43(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1961 the costs of such services shall be met by an increase in the amount of duties levied in respect of dog licences by the local authority. No increase shall be made on the licences for guide dogs, work dogs and dogs owned by persons over the age of sixty years.
The control of dogs is causing serious concern in almost every local authority in the country. Similar expressions of concern have been made by the many organisations dealing with animal welfare. The House will be aware that local authorities have certain powers under section 56(5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and that police officers have powers under section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906 to seize stray dogs, but recent history suggests that the attempt to control dogs has failed. That is borne out by the fact that the RSPCA has said that, on average, it destroys 160,000 stray dogs a year.
The clause will give local authorities the power to take more positive steps to remove this nuisance and to ensure that dog control becomes effective. I ask my hon. Friend to accept the new clause. It will not increase the number of civil servants, because the local authority can appoint firms or persons who have undergone a period of training in dog warden duties and who have set up a small business for the purpose to carry out all the dog warden duties within a local authority's area. This person, or firm, would report to the director of environmental health for that district, which would not involve the local authority in any great expense.
That leads me to the operating costs of the dog control system. There is already power available to the local authorities under section 43(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. My right hon. Friend, as Secretary of State for Scotland, has power under the Dog Licences Act 1959 to fix the amount payable for a dog licence, notwithstanding the terms of section 43(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966.
It must be borne in mind that the existing licence fee is 37½p, which has not been altered for many years. Any attempt to operate a dog control system must of necessity mean raising the existing duty so that the ratepayers and the local authorities do not have to bear the burden. The clause makes provision for no increase for guide dogs used by the blind, work dogs and dogs owned by persons over 60 years of age.
The clause will enable local authorities to by pass byelaws for dealing with the many problems caused by dogs. One of the worst features is the fouling of pavements and open spaces used by the public for leisure purposes. There is no need for me to elaborate upon this problem, as there is hardly a street in the country which at some stage during any given day is not fouled by a dog, which is often under the control of a person who has no thought or concern for the users of the pavement.
Another problem which could receive the attention of the local authorities is the control of dangerous dogs and dogs which are not under their owner's control.
If my hon. Friend will accept the clause, many other byelaws could be made by local authorities to deal with entry into food shops, identification tags, the raising of dogs, the use of veterinary officer services by dog owners, general human health risks, attacks on people, road safety and livestock worrying.
As the Minister for Defence has now entered the Chamber, I do not wish to detain the House any longer on this subject. It is sufficient to say that the clause will be widely welcomed by all local authorities in Scotland, where the need for dog control is continually under discussion. It will give the authorities the powers that they require to deal with the matter much more fully than is possible under existing legislation. It is a much needed system which will also be welcomed by the public at large and should cause no offence to genuine dog lovers.
I ask my hon. Friend to accept the clause, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) has raised a matter of considerable interest and concern. I hope that in the light of what I say he will consider withdrawing his new clause.
My hon. Friend is a member of the Committee considering the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill. Clause 130 of the Bill gives powers to local authorities to appoint people to assist the police to round up stray dogs. Licence fees can be increased without primary legislation by an order made under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that any action on that must be on a British basis, not a purely Scottish basis.
Licence fees for dog fouling nuisances are dealt with in clause 50 of the Civie Government (Scotland) Bill. I have no doubt that we shall have ample opportunity to consider these points in Committee on that Bill, and on that basis I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. McQuarrie: In view of the Minister's comments and the fact that I serve on the Committee dealing with the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill, where I shall have a further opportunity to elaborate and enlarge upon the speech that I have made tonight and which, unfortunately, has not been heard properly due to distressing circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

New Clause 6

SALE OF COUNCIL HOUSES IN RURAL AREAS

'In section 4 of the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 (regarding the conditions of sale), for subsections 7 to 8 there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(7) In a rural area to which an order under subsection (6) above applies, there will be no further disposal of the dwelling-house unless (a) the tenant (or his successor in title) has offered to reconvey the dwelling-house to the landlord for a price to be determined by the district valuer as being the value of the dwelling-house at the time the offer is made; and
(b) the landlord has refused the offer or has failed to accept it within one month after it was made.".'.—[Mr. Milian.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 285.

Division No. 136]
[10.44 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Eadie,Alex


Allaun,Frank
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're)


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
English,Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Ashton.Joe
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Faulds,Andrew


Barnett,Guy(Greenwich)
Field,Frank


Beith, A.J.
Flannery.Martin


Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Fletcher.Ted (Darlington)


Bidwell,Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Forrester,John


Boothroyd,MissBetty
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes,George
 

Brocklebank-Fowler.C,
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Buchan,Norman
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan,Jim(Midd't'n &amp; P)
Golding,John


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Graham, Ted


Canavan,Dennis
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Carmichael,Neil
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Haynes, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Holland,S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)


Conlan,Bernard
HomeRobertson,John


Cook, Robin F.
Homewood,William


Cowans, Harry
Hooley, Frank


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Howells,Geraint


Crowther,Stan
Hoyle,Douglas


Cryer,Bob
Huckfield,Les


Cunliffe,Lawrence
Hughes,Mark(Durham)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dalyell,Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Davidson,Arthur
John,Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)
 

Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Deakins,Eric
Kaufman, RtHon Gerald


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilfedder, JamesA.


Dewar,Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dixon, Donald
Kinnock,Neil


Dobson, Frank
Lamborn, Harry


Dormand,Jack
Lamond,James


Douglas,Dick
Leadbitter,Ted


Dubs,Alfred
Leighton,Ronald


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dunnett,Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dunwoody, Hon MrsG.
Litherland,Robert






Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ryman,John


Lyon,Alexander(York)
Sever,John


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney,Hugh
Sheldon, RtHon R.


McDonald,DrOonagh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Short, Mrs Renée


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Silkin, RtHon S.C. (Dulwich)


McKelvey,William
Silverman,Julius


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner,Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McNamara,Kevin
Snape, Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Soley,Clive


McWilliam,John
Spearing,Nigel


Marks,Kenneth
Spriggs,Leslie


Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)
Stallard.A.W.


Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)
Stoddart, David


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Maynard, MissJoan
Straw, Jack


Meacher,Michael
Summerskill,HonDrShirley


Mikardo,Ian
Thomas,Jeffrey(Abertillery)


Millan,RtHonBruce
Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)


Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Tilley,John


Morris, RtHonA. (W'shawe)
Tinn,James


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Urwin, RtHon Tom


Morris, RtHon J. (Aberavon)
Varley, RtHon Eric G.


Morton,George
Wainwright.E.(DearneV)


Moyle, RtHon Roland
Walker, RtHonH.(D'caster)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Watkins,David


O'Neill,Martin
Weetch,Ken


Palmer,Arthur
Welsh,Michael


Park, George
White, Frank R.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
White,J.(G'gowPollok)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Whitlock,William


Race, Reg
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wilson, William (C'trySE)


Richardson,Jo
Winnick,David


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodall,Alec


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Woolmer,Kenneth


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wright,Sheila


Robertson,George
Young, David (BoltonE)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)



Rooker.J. W.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roper,John
Mr. James Hamilton and 


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Dr. Edmund Marshall.


Rowlands,Ted





NOES


Aitken,Jonathan
Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon


Alexander,Richard
Brooke, Hon Peter


Alison, RtHonMichael
Brotherton,Michael


Ancram, Michael
Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)


Arnold,Tom
Bruce-Gardyne,John


Aspinwall,Jack
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Buck,Antony


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Budgen,Nick


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bulmer,Esmond


Banks,Robert
Burden,SirFrederick


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Cadbury,Jocelyn


Bendall,Vivian
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Bennett,SirFrederic (T'bay)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon.Thomas (A'don)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Benyon.W .(Buckingham)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Berry, Hon Anthony
Chapman,Sydney


Best, Keith
Churchill,W.S.


Bevan,DavidGilroy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biffen, RtHon John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Clegg,SirWalter


Blackburn,John
Cockeram,Eric


Blaker,Peter
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Cope,John


Bottomley, Peter (W'wichW)
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden,Andrew
Corrie,John


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Costain,SirAlbert


Braine,SirBernard
Cranborne,Viscount


Bright,Graham
Critchley,Julian


Brinton,Tim
Crouch,David





Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lang, Ian


Dickens.Geoffrey
Langford-Holt,SirJohn


Dorrell,Stephen
Latham,Michael


Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover,Denshore
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lee, John


Dunlop,John
LeMarchant, Spencer


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Lennox-Boyd,HonMark


Durant,Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Eden, RtHon Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eggar,Tim
Loveridge,john


Emery, Sir Peter
Luce,Richard


Eyre,Reginald
Lyell,Nicholas


Fairgrieve,SirRussell
McCrindle,Robert


Faith, MrsSheila
Macfarlane,Neil


Farr,John
MacGregor,John


Fell,SirAnthony
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macmillan,RtHonM.


Finsberg,Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson.M. (N'bury)


Fisher, SirNigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)
McQuarrie,Albert


Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles
Madel, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major,John


Forman, Nigel
Marland,Paul


Fowler, RtHon Norman
Marlow,Antony


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gardiner,George(Reigate)
Mates,Michael


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Gilmour, RtHon Sir Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Glyn, DrAlan
Mayhew, Patrick


Goodhart,SirPhilip
Mellor,David


Goodhew,SirVictor
Miller,Hal(B'grove)


Goodlad,Alastair
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Gorst,John
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Gow, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)
Moate,Roger


Greenway, Harry
Monro,SirHector


Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Morgan,Geraint


Griffiths,Peter Portsm'thN)
Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grylls,Michael
Mudd,David


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Neale,Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A.
Needham,Richard


Hamilton,Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson,Anthony


Hampson,DrKeith
Neubert,Michael


Hannam,John
Newton,Tony


Haselhurst,Alan
Nott, RtHon John


Hastings,Stephen
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Osborn,John


Hawkins,Paul
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, RtHonCecil


Heddle,John
Parris, Matthew


Heseltine, RtHon Michael
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Hicks,Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie,Geoffrey


Hill,James
Pawsey, James


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Percival,Sirlan


Holland,Philip(Carlton)
Peyton, RtHon John


Hordern, Peter
Pink, R.Bonner


Howe, RtHonSirGeoffrey
Pollock,Alexander


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Porter,Barry


Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Raison, RtHon Timothy


Irving,Charles(Cheltenham)
Rathbone,Tim


Jenkin, RtHon Patrick
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Jessel,Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey
Renton,Tim


Jopling, RtHon Michael
RhodesJames, Robert


Joseph, RtHon Sir Keith
Ridley,HonNicholas


Kaberry,SirDonald
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rifkind,Malcolm


King, RtHon Tom
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Knight,MrsJill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh






Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Trippier, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard
Waddington, David


Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, John


Silvester, Fred
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker, B. (Perth)


Smith, Dudley
Wall, Sir Patrick


Speed, Keith
Waller, Gary


Speller, Tony
Walters, Dennis


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Warren, Kenneth


Squire, Robin
Watson, John


Stainton, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stanley, John
Wheeler, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Raymond


Stevens, Martin
Wickenden, Keith


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


Tapsell, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.



Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Donald
Mr. Carol Mather and


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Thornton, Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Falkland Islands

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to make a statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Has the Secretary of State the leave of the House to make a statement?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Nott: In my statement earlier today, I said that we must expect further Argentine attacks on our forces. I deeply regret now to have to inform the House of such attacks.
In the course of its duties within the total exclusion zone around the Falkland Islands, HMS "Sheffield", a type 42 destroyer, was attacked and hit late this afternoon by an Argentine missile. The ship caught fire, which spread out of control. The order was then given to abandon ship. There were accompanying vessels in the immediate area which picked up those who had abandoned ship. Nearly all the ships's company and the captain are accounted for. However, I regret to say that initial indications are that 12 men are missing and there are likely to be other casualties.
Communications with the operational area are difficult at present and this information must be treated as provisional until further reports are received. Next of kin will, of course, be informed first as soon as full details are received.
Further air operations were also conducted over the Falkland Islands today. In the course of Sea Harrier attacks, one of our aircraft was shot down. The pilot has been killed. His name will be announced after we have confirmation that his next of kin have been informed. All the other Sea Harriers returned safely.
The task force is continuing with its operations as planned.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I first thank the Leader of the House for having responded to many of the requests from hon. Members that a statement should be made? May I also thank the Secretary of State for Defence for coming to the House to make the statement? As I am sure we all agree, it contains grave and tragic news. All of us deeply deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman should have had to come to the House to make it.
When I first heard the news, I thought that it was right that the House should wait for a while because the next of kin had not yet been informed. That is absolutely necessary as the next stage.
For the House to make the right judgment about this matter, it is better that we should have a statement tomorrow. We can consider that, what the Government may say and what we may say. I do not seek in any sense, in this moment of what could be a tragedy for some of our people, to make any political comments, but I hope that tomorrow the Government will be prepared to make a statement on the whole matter. We can discuss through the usual channels whether we should have a debate.
There are implications that arise and reflect on some of the things that have been said in the debates over the past few days and to which some of us referred in the debate last Thursday. But I suggest that the best course for the House is that the Secretary of State or perhaps the Prime


Minister should come to the House tomorrow and make a further statement in the full light of all these matters. That is the best way in which the House of Commons can give its judgment on the whole question.

Mr. Nott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is of course grave and tragic news; I entirely agree with him. I am sure that the Government will wish to make a statement tomorrow.

Mr. John Wells: One cannot help feeling that the Leader of the Opposition is the prize hypocrite on this occasion. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address his question to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Wells: rose——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. And before he does so, will he please withdraw the comment that he made?

Mr. Wells: I am asked to withdraw my remark about the Leader of the Opposition. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I had the privilege——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) must please withdraw the comment that he made.

Mr. Wells: I gladly withdraw the precise word, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I must say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that it is quite impossible for this House to conduct a debate across the Dispatch Box point by point in a conflict like this. Therefore, the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition——[HON. MEMBERS: Question.] May I put this to my right hon. Friend? Is it not right that we cannot debate a conflict like this point by point across the Dispatch Box? We must see it in the broader issue. While we cannot accept——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wells: While we cannot accept the views of the Opposition, we appreciate most deeply my right hon. Friend's expression of sympathy with the loss of life of our own men.

Mr. Nott: I would say to my hon. Friend that we shall of course keep the House informed as best we can. As soon as further details come in, we shall do that.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that at this moment we would simply like to put on record our deep sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who have lost their lives in this tragic way?

Mr. Nott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I am sure that the whole House shares his sentiments.

Mr. Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the whole House is bitterly distressed at what he has had to announce? Does he agree that probably the best thing, in the interests of all of us, is that we should pause on it until we can talk about it tomorrow, having thought about what has happened here? It is always difficult when one is opposing Fascist dictators, but let us think on it. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that might be the best course for the House to take.

Mr. Nott: I thank my hon. and learned Friend. We shall make a further statement tomorrow, and I hope that we shall be in a position to give more details then.

Dr. John Gilbert: Can the Secretary of State tell the House now whether the missile was launched from aircraft or from surface ships?

Mr. Nott: I cannot say at the moment that there can be any certainty about that. It probably was an air-launched missile, but I would rather wait until tomorrow, until I get details of that kind.

Mr. Peter Viggers: As a Member with a constituency closely involved with the task force. may I say to my right hon. Friend that the men concerned and their families knew the issues involved and knew the risks as well, and this increases our respect for their courage and determination?

Mr. Nott: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that the city of Sheffield took a deep pride in this fine ship, this lead ship of the type 42 class of destroyer, as indeed it took a deep pride in its predecessor, which also filled a distinguished role in the Second World War? I am confident that the people of the city would want one of their Members, who has had the good fortune to be called by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to express their deep sympathy with the families of those who may yet prove to be casualties.

Mr. Nott: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be much appreciated. She is the name ship of the "Sheffield" class of destroyer and was the first of her class to be launched. I am sure we all appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Michael Mates: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, tragic though the current situation is, it was unrealistic for anyone to expect that we could embark on this particular and very necessary course without suffering casualties? Will my right hon. Friend further accept that, provided that the Government neither over-react to this tragedy nor in any way weaken their resolve on the course they have set out on, they will have, and will deserve, the respect of the House and of the country?

Mr. Nott: It is the case that there has been a naval battle, if I can describe it as that, going on for several days and casualties to both ships and men are very likely to occur in that situation; so I agree with my hon. Friend in that respect.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: In the midst of the grief which we all share and which has been expressed from both sides of the House, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Prime Minister is still inviting us all to rejoice, rejoice?

Mr. Nott: I shall not comment on that matter, but I am afraid that I must make one correction to the remarks I made earlier. I said in making my statement that initial indications were that 12 men were missing. I regret to say that the latest news, which I have just had, is rather worse. It is that the number of deaths may be as high as 30. But we really do not have sufficient information at this stage to give firm news to the House, and that is why I think it is better to wait until tomorrow.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the tragic nature of the news that has been announced by the Secretary of State and the undertaking that there is to be a further statement tomorrow, would it not be better if we moved on to other business?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I sense that that is indeed the mood of the House. I therefore propose to call two more Members from each side of the House.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the eyes of the nation are upon this House tonight? As someone who has been here for only 12 years but who spent six years fighting in the war, I found tonight some signs of panic on both sides of the House. May I assure my right hon. Friend that those signs are only temporary and I am sure that tomorrow the House will be resolved that we should carry through what the Government are determined to do.

Mr. Nott: I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. I would not wish to comment on them tonight.

Mr. John Roper: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that from this Bench we would wish to associate ourselves with the sympathy that has been expressed with the families of those involved in these tragic events? We await with concern a further ministerial statement tomorrow.

Mr. Nott: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when many thousands of our Service men are on the high seas with the task force we should be showing our united support for them? The last

thing that we should be doing is trying to put a series of questions that cannot find answers because the answers are not available.

Mr. Nott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leo Abse: We all share similar thoughts in this tragedy and we are profoundly concerned that further tragedies should not take place. Can we have the assurance that in the statement that will be made there will be no attempt on the part of the Government to compound the initial error that brought us to this situation and left the islands without defence? Can we be assured also that in the light of our obvious vulnerability there will be no absurd reiterations of the inviolability of sovereignty without considering other aspects? Will we be told that our men will not be put to further risks by being sent by the thousands in the "QE2" into areas where quite clearly there could be further tragedies and further deaths? We shall be expecting far more resilience and far more elasticity than we have experienced so far from this Government.

Mr. Nott: The operation has been going on for several weeks and there has been only one fatal accident on the way down and one other accident. This has been due very largely to the great skill of the men taking part. The hon. Gentleman's other remarks were of a wider nature and I do not think that it is appropriate for me to comment on them tonight.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it would be in the best interests of the House and of the nation that we await a further statement tomorrow. We shall now return to the consideration of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill.

Orders of the Day — Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill

Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
In view of the deep feelings that have been aroused by what has happened and what has been said in the House, I think that it would be sensible, if the Government agree, to adjourn consideration of the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept the proposition.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said and that it is difficult for the House to get down to normal business at a time like this. However, I do not see that any purpose is served by—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has not even finished his sentence.

Mr. Younger: Whether it is agreed or not, I think that I am entitled to express a view. I do not think that we serve any purpose in the House by declining to do our normal duty because something like this has occurred. I do not think that many of those involved in the operations would think much of us if all we could do was give up our normal business.

Mr. David Ennals: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. It is a debatable motion.

Mr. Ennals: The Leader of the House showed great sympathy and understanding when representations were made to him earlier. Great sympathy was also shown by the Secretary of State for Defence in coming to the House to make a statement. It would, therefore, be quite inappropriate for the House to continue with the debate. I hope that the Leader of the House will now make a statement.

Sir John Eden: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has not been here throughout today's debate. Possibly, after due consideration, he will agree that it would be sensible, in view of present circumstances, for today's business to be stood over until a later date. Will he be good enough, in the light of the feelings that are being expressed on both sides of the House, to reconsider what he has just said?

Mr. William Hamilton: I understand that the motion is debatable. I should therefore like to make a speech.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have responded so insensitively to the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian). I belong to the mining community. Whenever a miner was killed in a pit, the pit was suspended immediately out of respect to the family and the man concerned. The House would show the deepest form

of respect for the people who have been bereaved by the maladministration of the Government if it were to adjourn until tomorrow.
It is quite clear that the House will no longer be interested in the important subject that we have been discussing today. It behoves the Leader of the House to sense the feeling of the House that has been expressed on both sides and to accept the motion forthwith.

Mr. Biffen: On certain occasions the fewest words are perhaps the most eloquent. The motion has been moved. I suggest that it be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

TAKING OF HOSTAGES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees),

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuarr to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LINER CONFERENCES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees),

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill commited to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

SEA FISHERIES

That the Fish Producers' Organizations (Formation Grants) Scheme 1982 (S.I. 1982, No. 498), a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.—[Mr. Lang.]

Question agreed to.

DEER (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 and certain related enactments, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the said Act of the present Session to be imid; and
(2) the payment of any increase attributable to that Actin the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment. —[Mr. Lang.]

Orders of the Day — School Transport (Clwyd)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Tom Ellis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the rate support grant settlement and its effect on education in Clwyd. I wish to look at the effect of the settlement on a narrow sector of education in Clwyd—the transport of children to school. Children must be able to get to school.
Five or six villages in the county—Coedpoeth, Broughton, Penyfordd, Brynleg and so on—are two or three miles from schools. Bus passes have been withdrawn. Hundreds of children are involved.
The county council took the decision last year: the bus passes were to cease to operate from 1 January this year. Parents raised a considerable protest and the council deferred the decision. It came into effect about a fortnight ago at the beginning of the summer term. Further protests have taken place. At least 500 schoolchildren are not now attending lessons. That is serious.
Let me explain what is behind the parents' decision. The two basic issues are the danger of children walking to school and the expense of public transport fares. When the Education Act 1944 was passed, road conditions were very different. In a large city, transport may move at only 15 or 20 miles an hour. The road from Coedpoeth to Wrexham is a trunk road and traffic travels on it at 50 or 60 miles an hour. A considerable length of it has no footpath. Particularly in the winter, when children travel home after dark, there are considerable dangers.
Fares are expensive. I live in a rural area. I tend to use my motor car and have not used buses for years. I had not appreciated the expense of public transport. The fare to school and back is between 90p and £1·20 a day or £5 or £6 a week. Families with three children would have a bill of between £15 and £16 a week or £70 a month.
I give one example of a family with a total income of £78 weekly. The man is unemployed. I hope that the Minister realises that I am referring to an area with a high unemployment rate of more than 20 per cent. The family have three children at school. If the parents are to pay for their public transport to school, about one-fifth of the £78—about £16—will be paid out. I ask the Minister to pause and consider how serious that is, and how substantial a proportion of £78 that represents.
I can say with a fair certainty of being correct that there is not one child attending Eton College—perhaps one of the most distinguished of public schools—whose parent spends one-fifth of his income to send his child to that college. I do not know the annual fees for Eton, but assuming that they are £5,000 I doubt whether parents with children at Eton are earning less than £25,000 annually. It is, therefore, costing an unemployed parent in my constituency proportionately more to send his children to school in Wrexham than it costs a parent to send his son to Eton College.
I stress to the Minister that the parents involved are not given to emotional hot air, and so on. They are serious-minded, sincere people who are faced with a genuine problem. This was put graphically to me by a mother who said that in no circumstances would she allow her child to walk the 2¾ miles along this busy road. She said that she would rather have an uneducated child than a dead child.

Walking to school was, therefore, ruled out—in my view, rightly so. The mother added that she simply did not have the money for public transport and that she could not raise the money. The problem is intractable for that mother. The present position is that her child is not attending the school in Wrexham but, in common with hundreds of other children, is attending makeshift classes that the parents have arranged.
That is the scale of the problem. One might have thought that perhaps the Department of Health and Social Security could help. I do not advocate that parents should be obliged to go to the Department of Health and Social Security to get their children to school, but the strange fact is that the Department is not entitled to help. I have a letter from the Welsh branch of the Department of Health and Social Security that puts the matters in a nutshell. The letter states:
Regulation 4 of the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1980 sets out the day-to-day living expenses which are provided for in the basic scale rates.
One of these expenses is normal travel costs, which one might consider applies to fares to and from school. The letter adds that regulation 11 provides for additions to be made to the normal requirements for certain specified expenses, but school fares are not included. In addition, regulation 6(2) of the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1981 specifically precludes the making of a single payment for travelling expenses to or from school. Therefore, the Department of Health and Social Security regards the question as being one for the Department of Education and Science and for the local education authorities.
The local education authority—in this case the Clwyd education authority—takes the view that this is a matter for the Government. The Minister will no doubt tell me that the matter is one for the county council. So we have the authorities—the Government, the Welsh Office and the county council—each saying that the matter is of no concern to them. The plain fact is that after 112 years of universal free education in this country we have now reached the position in Clwyd where many children no longer enjoy the right to universal free education. That is the reality of the situation.
The education authority is quite clear in its view. I have here a letter from the chief officer dated 8 April. It says:
The county council contend that responsibility for meeting the additional costs devolving upon parents lies with central Government
despite the various points made in the correspondence. The letter continues:
All the foregoing is of national concern to both parents and education authorities. It does not affect our urgent review of the local situation. Whether there is something that Clwyd can do on a county basis to assist less well off parents is something we have under the most active consideration".
I understand that the county council proposed that a small proportion of the total number of parents would receive special grants, but this has been rejected by the great bulk of parents as just tinkering with the problem and not getting down to the matter proper.
The council has made an estimate. I am not clear how it has been reached, but I suspect that it was merely a question of counting all the children and multiplying by the average fare or whatever. The county council estimates that to cater for every child in the county of Clwyd who wishes to travel by public transport would cost about £1·6 million. The council says that it does not have the money.
I know that the county council has a discretionary right to spend moneys on a range of services. I understand that it makes a grant of about £1·4 million to rural buses, yet quite often those buses travel the rural roads of Clwyd pretty well empty. One could argue that the council should alter its list of priorities and uprate the priority of the school children so that the buses are at least fully used. More use would then be made of the money spent by the council.
That is a pretty short-term answer to a real problem. It will become bigger and bigger, and many other councils will gradually face the same kind of problem. Therefore, I trust that the Welsh Office will seriously look at this problem, because it is a real one of considerable importance. In the immediate future, I hope that it will make available a specific grant for this purpose.
I do not think that anything like £1·6 million is required to deal with the problem, which affects those children who have had bus passes and have had them withdrawn. Those who have never experienced the provision of free bus services are not really concerned. This applies to people living in certain areas of the country. My guess is that the amount of money involved would be substantially less than the £1·6 million estimate of the county council. I hope that a specific grant will be made, just as recently a grant was made from the council's general budget in respect of education for children over 16.
Secondly, in the longer term I hope that the Government will consider the whole question of the need for these schools, particularly in Wrexham where we have a sixth form college.
In my opinion, where a sixth form college exists, there is hardly a need to have schools of 1,100 or 1,200 pupils up to the fifth form. I should have thought that schools with 300 to 500 pupils could become viable units. If that is so, schools could be located as they were a few years ago—in the villages that they used to serve—instead of being centrally positioned in towns.
I have raised a serious problem, and I hope that the Minister will reveal at least a glimmer of light.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) is deeply concerned about the problem that he has raised, as are the parents of many of the children in his constituency. Therefore, I shall state the facts involved.
The level of local authority expenditure on individual services has to be considered in the context of the whole rate support grant settlement for 1982–83. The RSG settlement is a matter of major importance not simply in relation to individual services and to the local authorities concerned but for the Government and the country as a whole. Public expenditure has to be kept to a level that the nation can afford. Local authority expenditure accounts for a substantial proportion of total public expenditure and it cannot be exempted from playing its part.
The rate support grant settlement for 1982–83 is a very fair and generous one for Welsh local authorities. The £94 million increase on the settlement provision for current expenditure compared with 1981–82 should enable local authorities to maintain their services at broadly the same level as was envisaged in last year's RSG settlement.
Not only was the current expenditure provision of the 1982–83 settlement £94 million—9·1 per cent. —higher than the RSG settlement for 1981–82 but also the amount

of grant increased by £72 million—8·3 per cent. —over that for 1981–82. As a result of the generous settlement Eind our decision to reduce the level of domestic rate relief to 18½p in the pound, local authorities have been able to limit their general rate increase to only 4½ per cent. on average-the lowest increase for very many years. Clwyd county council has kept its precept unchanged from that of 1981–82.
The rate support grant is of course unhypothecated, and therefore the amount spent on the education service as compared with other county councils is solely a matter for the county council concerned to determine for itself. It is free to decide its priorities and the level of expenditure on each of the services which is appropriate to the circumstances. If a local authority chooses to protect one service at the expense of another, that is a matter on which I cannot comment, nor would I wish to intervene. The concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself is that local authorities in aggregate do not exceed the total expenditure provision which underlies the RSG settlement.
Having said that we are mainly concerned about the aggregate level of expenditure, I should add that Clwyd county council has been able to benefit from the generally fair settlement. The county's share of total grant-related expenditure is virtually unchanged from last year. Although grant-related expenditure is not a precise measure of an individual authority's level of expenditure, the fact is that Clwyd county council has maintained its position and shared in the general benefit.
There are some who continue to repeat the statement that local authority services are being savagely reduced because of the Government's action. What are the facts? The facts are that on the basis of the latest estimate there has been no reduction in local authority spending in Wales in real terms between 1977–78 and the last financial year. Where, then, are the draconian reductions in Welsh local authority services, given the very severe economic circumstances the country has had to face in a period of world recession and massive increases in oil costs? I do not remember Opposition Members complaining in 1977 that local authority services were grossly under-funded. I would also wish to remind hon. Members that since that time the largest single sector of local authority expenditure—education—has seen a fall in the number of pupils in Wales by 40,000, a reduction of nearly 8 per cent.
It must be said that, if pay and price increases exceed the levels allowed for in the settlement, authorities will be expected to make compensating savings within their budgets. That discipline applies to local authorities as it does to central Government. The Government consider that savings can be achieved through increased efficiency and effectiveness without authorities resorting to reducing services. However, individual authorities may decide that a reduction in service levels is necessary to keep within the Government's expenditure guideline. Their choice is taken in the full knowledge of local needs and circumstances and is not dictated by the Government.
Local authority expenditure in 1982–83 is, however, being closely monitored and the Secretary of State has emphasised that, if the Wales RSG aggregate level of expenditure for the year is exceeded, he will need to withhold grant. In the event that it becomes necessary to withhold grant, the Secretary of State has made it clear that


he will seek as far as possible to protect those authorities which have made an effort to keep their expenditure at a reasonable level.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of difficulties which a number of parents in his constituency and, more widely, in other parts of Clwyd, are facing in paying for the transport of their children to school following the recent decision by Clwyd local education authority to withdraw discretionary school transport from certain groups of parents in the county.
I would not dispute his figures—the hon. Gentleman knows the local circumstances—and I would make the point to him that I am not unsympathetic to parents who find themselves in such a position. However, I would like to put to him and to parents, on whose behalf he has spoken tonight, a certain number of points and I hope that in so doing I shall make our position quite clear.
First, this is without a shadow of doubt a local government matter in that it is for local authorities to determine their own policies on school transport within the framework of the law. This law provides in effect that local authorities must provide free transport, or its equivalent, from a child's home to the nearest suitable school when a child lives more than three miles away if it is aged 8 or over, or two miles away if it is under 8. That is the statutory position and I know of no authority which is failing in its statutory duty in this regard. If children live closer to school, then the authority may, at its discretion, assist with transport and, of course, it may also give the same assistance if parents choose a school which is not the nearest suitable school for religious or other reasons. But transport provided in such circumstances is entirely discretionary.
That is the first point I wish to stress to the hon. Gentleman. The authority may provide transport or they may take it away according to their judgment of local needs and circumstances. Of course, it is very helpful, if you are a parent living some distance from a school, to have your child's travel provided by the local authority. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there should be limits to the beneficence of local authorities in this matter. Were all children to be provided with free transport irrespective of where they lived, the cost would be enormous and a serious strain on the resources available for education. Clearly, that could not be supported and it must therefore be right for parents to take responsibility for getting their children to school where the distances involved are not excessive. Let us remember that it is not necessary always to contemplate paying for bus fares. Over these distances it is not unreasonable in many cases, if not in all, to expect children to walk or to cycle to school. It would not be reasonable to expect children to walk or cycle more than three miles, which is why the law provides that transport over this distance should be free. That is my second point—that it is entirely right for parents to have certain obligations placed upon them for getting their own children to school.
It is wrong to present, as the hon. Gentleman has done, this action by Clwyd local education authority as a direct result of the restrictions on public expenditure which the Government are setting in the course of returning the economy to a sound base. How a local authority decides to spend its resources is, within the framework of the law, entirely a matter for it alone to decide and, if authorities

like Clwyd should decide that there is more value in spending their resources on books and teachers, which are central to the education system, than on such ancillary services as school meals and school transport, this is entirely a matter for them.
Here we come to a most vital point. I understand that to make transport provision within the Clwyd local education authority which would cater not just for the children of parents who have lost their former free school transport for their children but for the children of other parents who live equal distances from schools in the county—to make this provision based on providing free school transport over distances of two miles and one mile instead of the statutory distances of three miles and two miles—would cost Clwyd an extra £1·6 million. That is a lot of money and the hon. Gentleman must say from where it should be found if he wishes to see this provision made.
The £1·6 million is the equivalent of approximately 200 teachers. Would it be sensible to sack 200 teachers to provide more school transport? That £1·6 million is the product, approximately, in Clwyd of a 5p rate. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that rates in Clwyd should go up by this amount with the effect that that would have on industry and employment? Or is he suggesting that the money should come from the education budget? Again, were it to come from the education budget, we cannot escape the decision as to whether that money, if it could be made available—and I am not suggesting for a moment that it can—would be better employed in providing books and teachers rather than on providing school transport. Decisions on its use of resources are for the county council to consider, but it is right for me to make it clear that the issues involved are not all straightforward ones.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that Clwyd local education authority already spends heavily on school transport—a total of nearly £3·5 million each year. I am sure that he also realises the large number of children who have to 'ravel to school in that largely rural county. He will know that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of parents in the county who are already paying for school transport for a distance of under three miles to enable their children to get to school. Such parents far outnumber the relatively few from whom this transport concession has been withdrawn. Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that certain groups of parents within the county should be
The Clwyd education committee decided that there should be equal treatment for all parents in the county on the school transport issue and this decision was endorsed by the whole Clwyd county council. I understand that it is determined that, if any future changes are to be made in school transport policy, they should apply to all groups of parents in the county. This policy was confirmed by a full meeting of the Clwyd education committee this morning.
I am sure that Clwyd county council is not in any way insensitive, or unsympathetic, to the real difficulties facing some parents from whom this concession has been withdrawn, and I understand that Clwyd has said that it will provide free transport for children living anywhere in the county who have to travel more than 2½ miles to school if their parents are in receipt of certain benefits. This concession is designed to assist those who are least able to cope with their present difficulty, in a constructive and helpful manner that is fair to all.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of undertakings which had been given to the parents. I recognise that undertakings made by a pre-existing authority at a time of different economic and social circumstances may in some cases cause difficulties for the successor authorities——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.